Final Authority and Final Canonization

[Logos1560]

1841 London English Bible

Thank you for your reply.

Please list the mauscript revisions of the 1611 KJV before the 1881 RV.

In my earlier reply, I already mentioned examples. It would only take one example to show your earlier assertion to be incorrect.

Are you unaware of John Wesley's 1755 English Bible?

Are you unaware of the 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists and other believers?

Are you unaware of the 1866 American Bible Union Version?

Are you unaware of a 1841 edition of the AV that made 20,000 emendations to it?
The Holy Bible containing the Authorized Version of the Old and New Testaments with many Emendations. London, 1841.

In the New Testament of this 1841 London edition of the KJV with emendations, it has “food“ in place of “meat“ (Matt. 3:4), "immediately" in place of "by and by" (Matt. 13:21), "the prophet Isaiah" in place of "the prophets" (Mark 1:2), “tablet“ in place of “writing table“ (Luke 1:63), “enrolled“ in place of “taxed“ (Luke 2:1), "their purification" in place of "her purification" (Luke 2:22), “honour“ in place of “worship“ (Luke 14:10), "concerning it" in place of "thereabout" (Luke 24:4), "gave thanks" in place of "blessed it" (Luke 24:30), "testimony" in place of "record" (John 1:19), "flock" in place of "fold" (John 10:16), "his office" in place of "his bishoprick" (Acts 1:21), "Passover" in place of "Easter" (Acts 12:4), “its own accord“ in place of “his own accord“ (Acts 12:10), "Holy Spirit" in place of "Holy Ghost" (Acts 13:52), "Simon Peter" in place of "Simeon" (Acts 15:14), "saith JEHOVAH" in place of "saith the Lord" (Acts 15:17), "robbers of temples" in place of "robbers of churches" (Acts 19:37), "church of the LORD God" in place of "the church of God" (Acts 20:28), “deaconess“ in place of “servant“ (Rom. 16:1), “love“ in place of “charity“ (1 Cor. 13:1), "behaviour" in place of "conversation" (Gal. 1:13), "By no means" in place of "God forbid" (Gal. 2:17), "fruit of the light" in place of "fruit of the Spirit" (Eph. 5:9), "plaited" in place of 'broided" (1 Tim. 2:9), "not quarrelsome" in place of "no striker" (1 Tim. 3:3), "evil spirits" in place of "devils" (1 Tim. 4:1), "descendants" in place of "nephews" (1 Tim. 5:4), "Joshua" in place of "Jesus" (Heb. 4:8), “holy furniture“ in place of “worldly sanctuary“ (Heb. 9:1), "confession of our hope" in place of "profession of our faith" (Heb. 10:23), "those who have presided over you" in place of "them which have the rule over you" (Heb. 13:7), “fervent“ in place of “effectual fervent“ (James 5:16), "cleansing" in place of "sprinkling" (1 Pet. 1:2), "chief" in place of "beginning" (Rev. 3:14), "living creature" in place of "beast" (Rev. 6:3), and "those who wash their garments" in place of "they that do his commandments" (Rev. 22:14).

​

​

​

 

[Logos1560]

Wycliffe Bible 1362

Tyndale Bible 1522

Coverdale Bible 1535

Great Bible 1539

Geneva Bible 1560

Bishops Bible 1568

Are you suggesting that you would accept the above English Bibles as being Scripture or the Word of God in the same way or in the same sense that you claim for the KJV?

 

[makahiya117]

Thank you for your reply.

I don't think it is a manuscript revision, it may be a corrupt edtion

of the AV 1611 KJV Holy Bible.

Do you know if a manuscript was used change the readings

of the AV 1611 KJV Holy Bible ?

If so, what manuscripts were used ?

 

[makahiya117]

Are you suggesting that you would accept the above English Bibles as being Scripture or the Word of God in the same way or in the same sense that you claim for the KJV?

Yes.

The Purified Text Theory further defines final canonization.

 

[makahiya117]

Bible Canonization

" A peacock is no more perfect or beautiful than a swan.
A peacock is simply magnified in the details. Beauty under a magnifying glass, is magnified beauty. When early English Bibles dawned, their simple lines were like the swan. Now they pale with the magnified details of the beautiful King James Bible. The previous Bishop’s Bible 1568-1611 was no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV. It’s beauty was simply polished, like pure gold is polished, so that the KJV magnifies and mirrors more finely the glorious reflection of our precious Saviour, Jesus, the author. ”

Dr. Gail Riplinger

 

[Mexdeaf]

" A peacock is no more perfect or beautiful than a swan.
A peacock is simply magnified in the details. Beauty under a magnifying glass, is magnified beauty. When early English Bibles dawned, their simple lines were like the swan. Now they pale with the magnified details of the beautiful King James Bible. The previous Bishop’s Bible 1568-1611 was no less perfect, pure, and true than the KJV. It’s beauty was simply polished, like pure gold is polished, so that the KJV magnifies and mirrors more finely the glorious reflection of our precious Saviour, Jesus, the author. ”

Dr. Gail Riplinger

You have revealed your true colors. "Dr." Riplinger has been discredited, debunked and even disowned by most of the KJVO clan for her outright lies and dishonesty regarding this issue.

 

[Yeshua1]

You have revealed your true colors. "Dr." Riplinger has been discredited, debunked and even disowned by most of the KJVO clan for her outright lies and dishonesty regarding this issue.

I would contrast her qualifications in regards to textual criticism to the Alands, Kurt and barbara, and would say that the 2 MV that were Satanic inspired per her, NASB/NIV actually show jesus as lord even more so than the KJV does!

 

[jonathan.borland]

Can you name and identify any one Greek manuscript that agrees 100% with the KJV?

Are you unaware of the fact that the KJV has some readings that are not found in the majority of the manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus was based and even readings found in no Greek NT manuscript?

Dean John William Burgon actually supported revision of the Textus Receptus and KJV (The Revision Revised, pp. 21, 107, 114, 224, 236, 269). For example, Dean Burgon wrote: "Again and again we shall have occasion to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correction" (p. 21). Burgon wrote: “That some corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well aware” (p. 224, footnote 1). Burgon asserted that “the accumulated evidence of the last two centuries has enabled us to correct it [the Textus Receptus] with confidence in hundreds of places” (Treatise on the Pastoral Office, p. 69). In his introduction to Burgon’s book, Edward Miller wrote: “In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew‘s Gospel alone“ (Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 5). Burgon and Miller advocated “the Traditional Text,“ not the Textus Receptus (p. 5). Burgon as edited by Miller asserted: “I am not defending the ‘Textus Receptus’” (p. 15). Burgon added: “That it is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skillful revision in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text” (p. 15). Edward Miller suggested that the Traditional Text advocated by Dean Burgon would differ “in many passages” from the Textus Receptus (p. 96).

Nice quotes. Thanks!

 

[makahiya117]

Diminished KJV Texts

Noah Webster collated the English language and produced his famous dictionary. Webster's 1828 dictionary matched the KJV Bibles completely. This simple historical fact clearly demonstrates the obvious source of American language. John Alden brought the KJV Bible to America on the Mayflower. John Wheelright’s 1636 sermon quoted from the KJV Bible, not the Geneva Bible.

While Webster's dictionary is a monumental contribution to academics, Webster's bible is a monumental display of foolishness. When Noah decided he should alter the words of pure KJV texts with "clearer" words, his pride produced diminished KJV texts. Modern bible publishers are doing the exact same thing today !

Apostate scholars and insincere amateur intellectuals are simply reverse engineering their theories and are dishonest when they claim to quote scripture. KJV Only Christians are elementary bible believers. All scripture is given by inspiration of God. Original Only Christians are simple. There are no original manuscripts.

The Record Theory independently answers the questions of final authority and final canonization (books and words). The dynamic Purified Text Theory supports the Record Theory, demonstrated categorically and conclusively in the manuscript evidence, bible canonization, bible doctrine, billions of bibles and computational linguistics.

 

[Logos1560]

Noah Webster collated the English language and produced his famous dictionary. Webster's 1828 dictionary matched the KJV Bibles completely. This simple historical fact clearly demonstrates the obvious source of American language.

I do not find that the definitions in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary match the use of all words in the KJV "completely."

Where is the evidence that proves your broad-sweeping claim to be a supposed fact?

In his entry for devil in his 1828 Dictionary, Noah Webster pointed out that in the English New Testament (KJV) the word devil "is frequently and erroneously used for demon." In his introduction to his 1833 translation of the Bible, Webster wrote: "I cannot think a translator justified in such a departure from the original, as to render the word [daimon] by devil. The original word for devil is never plural" (p. xi).

In his introduction to his 1833 translation, Noah Webster noted that the word discover now usually means "to find, see, or perceive for the first time," but that in its usage in the KJV the intended meaning was "uncover, make bare, or expose to view." At Micah 1:6, Webster pointed out that "the all-seeing God had nothing to find or see for the first time" and that "the sense of the word is to uncover, to lay bare" (p. ix). At his entry discover in his 1828 Dictionary, Webster observed that "we discover what before existed, though to us unknown." Can the eternal, all-knowing God discover what before existed?

In his 1828 dictionary, Noah Webster gave the following as the first definition for the word church: "A house consecrated to the worship of God, among Christians; the Lord's house. This seems to be the original meaning of the word."

 

[Logos1560]

insincere amateur intellectuals are simply reverse engineering their theories and are dishonest when they claim to quote scripture.

Makahiya, are you an "insincere" amateur intellectual who invents or engineers your own theories concerning the KJV from the writings of Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman?

What entitles you in effect to attack the honesty of believers who may disagree with your unproven, non-scriptural theories?

 

[makahiya117]

I answered that question in my opening statements.

#1. You cannot honestly state you have scripture if you believe only the original manuscripts were given by inspiration of God. There are no original manuscripts.

#2. You cannot honestly say "the bible" or "all bibles" are given by inspiration of God. There are over 400 (Christian, Catholic, Cult) Greek, Syrian, Latin, German, English, French, Spanish, etc. bibles which do not match in content, volume or doctrine.

#3. You cannot honestly say "the Greek N.T." or "all N.T. Greek texts"
are given by inspiration of God. There are over 24 reconstructed (Christian, Catholic, Cult) Greek N.T. texts which do not match in content, volume or doctrine.

 

[Mexdeaf]

#1. You cannot honestly state you have scripture if you believe only the original manuscripts were given by inspiration of God. There are no original manuscripts.

Proof that you believe in the unscriptural view of "double inspiration". Only the originals were inspired- period.

#2. You cannot honestly say "the bible" or "all bibles" are given by inspiration of God. There are over 400 (Christian, Catholic, Cult) Greek, Syrian, Latin, German, English, French, Spanish, etc. bibles which do not match in content, volume or doctrine.

No one here says that except you- implying that the KJV itself is inspired by God. And even the various KJV's do not agree 100% with each other.

#3. You cannot honestly say "the Greek N.T." or "all N.T. Greek texts"are given by inspiration of God. There are over 24 reconstructed (Christian, Catholic, Cult) Greek N.T. texts which do not match in content, volume or doctrine.

And the KJV matches NO EXISTING Greek text today- NONE!

So where does that leave you?

 

[makahiya117]

I clearly stated my theory of final authority and final canonization.

I am not a KJV Only or an Original only.

I believe all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Do you have scripture ?




.

 

[Logos1560]

dishonest KJV translators according to your claims?

#1. You cannot honestly state you have scripture if you believe only the original manuscripts were given by inspiration of God. There are no original manuscripts.

#3. You cannot honestly say "the Greek N.T." or "all N.T. Greek texts"
are given by inspiration of God. There are over 24 reconstructed (Christian, Catholic, Cult) Greek N.T. texts which do not match in content, volume or doctrine.

Again your unproven claims attack the honesty of the KJV translators and their view of the Scriptures.

Are you claiming that the KJV translators were dishonest and untrustworthy since they referred to "the original Greek," "the Greek text," etc.?

According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.“ The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.“ Lancelot Andrewes, a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.“

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators asserted: "No cause therefore why the words translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibility, had not their hand?"

In effect, according to their own words, the KJV translators clearly denied that their translation was and could be perfect.

 

[Logos1560]

I clearly stated my theory of final authority and final canonization.

You make no clear, consistent, logical, sound, scriptural case for your theory.

 

[makahiya117]

Ok, fine, you do not agree with the Record Theory

or the Purified Text Theory.

What do you believe ?

Do you have scripture ?

 

[Logos1560]

Originally Posted by makahiya117

Wycliffe Bible 1362

Tyndale Bible 1522

Coverdale Bible 1535

Great Bible 1539

Geneva Bible 1560

Bishops Bible 1568

Originally Posted by Logos1560
Are you suggesting that you would accept the above English Bibles as being Scripture or the Word of God in the same way or in the same sense that you claim for the KJV?

Yes.

In other words, you are claiming that an imperfect translation such as the 1535 Coverdale's Bible is the word of God in the same sense and way that the KJV is.

In his introduction to a facsimile reprint of Coverdale's Bible, S. L. Greenslade noted that though in 1535, Coverdale "normally says repent, or sometimes amend, he ten times has '(do) penance'" (p. 15). The rendering "penance" can be found in Coverdale's Bible at Matthew 3:8, 12:41, Luke 10:13, 11:32, 15:7, 10, 16:30, Acts 3:19 and 26:20. In his prologue to his 1535 Bible, Coverdale wrote: "Be not thou offended therefore (good Reader) though one call a scribe, that another calleth a lawyer; or elders, that another calleth father & mother; or repentance, that another calleth penance or amendment." Can KJV-only advocates explain the Holy Spirit’s role in this rendering “penance” being in this earlier English Bible of which the KJV was a revision?


From the Latin Vulgate, Coverdale's Bible has the rendering "lamies" at Lamentations 4:3. From the influence of the Vulgate, Coverdale’s has “Alexandria” instead of “No” (Jer. 46:25). Instead of "mown grass" at Psalm 72:6, Coverdale's has "fleece of wool." At Psalm 28:8, Coverdale's has "strength of his people" in agreement with the LXX, Syriac, and Latin Vulgate while the KJV has only "strength." At Psalm 13:6, Coverdale's has a sentence that is not in the KJV: "Yea, I will praise the name of the LORD the most highest." Coverdale's Bible has "upon me" after "call" at Psalm 20:9 that is not in the KJV. Coverdale's Bible adds "before him" after "rejoice" at Psalm 2:11. Does Coverdale’s Bible have any “foreign matter?“ Instead of "balm" at Jeremiah 8:22, Coverdale's has "treacle." In agreement with LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate, Coverdale's reads "the God of Gods appeareth unto thee in Zion" in the second half of verse seven of Psalm 84. "A cock ready to fight" is Coverdale's rendering at the beginning of Proverbs 30:31. Coverdale's rendered Daniel 3:25 as follows: "the fourth is like an angel to look upon." At Matthew 1:23, Coverdale's Bible reads "maid" rather than "virgin."

 

[makahiya117]

Ok, fine, you do not agree with the Record Theory

or the Purified Text Theory.

What do you believe ?

Do you have scripture ?

KJV But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty,
not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully;
but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Be honest, do you have scripture ?

 

[Rippon]

"No cause therefore why the words translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current,

"Or forbidden to be current" is something that should be noted. Miles Smith was right on.How far have the KJVO folks departed from the thoughts of the KJV revisers!