KJVo Refuse to Answer

[Dr. Bob]

I found all kinds of engraving in my 1611 but no coat of arms. Of course, I would have to know what the coat of arms looked like . .

Also, when you wake up, Don, which KJV do you use? Don't want to take this thread away from the interested examination of unicorns.

Thanks.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Phillip:
1. What was the word-for-word, letter-for-letter perfect English Bible in 1605?

2. Which version of the KJV is word-for-word, letter-for-letter perfect?

WAIT! You mean unicorns is NOT the topic?

Then NO MORE POSTS ABOUT UNICORNS HERE. Start another thread. Just answer the question.

1. _________________________

2. _________________________

 

[Phillip]

Thanks, Dr. Bob. Even I was slipping.

King James Bible Only wanted some changes from the 1611 to the Oxford. I will pull a few from the other thread in case he did not read them. I'm sure he wants to explain them as "printers errors" or "means the same, regardless of what you think". Looks like some jots and tittles got twiddled!

Check and compare the following verses in
the 1611 and present Oxford edition for some
examples:

examples where later editors added two words:
Exod. 15:25, 21:32, 35:11, Lev. 19:34, Lev. 26:23, Deut. 26:1, 1 Sam. 18:27, Ezek. 34:31,
46:23, John 7:16, 2 Cor. 9:6, 1 John 5:12, Rev. 1:4, 5:13

examples where later editors added three words:
Lev. 26:40, Num. 7:31, 7:55, Josh. 13:29, 2 Kings 11:10, Ezek. 3:11, 2 Cor. 11:32, 2 Tim. 4:13

example where later editors added six words
Eccl. 8:17

Later editors added 6 words to the 1611 edition of the KJV at one verse, 3 words at eight verses,
2 words at twelve verses, 1 word at over 90 verses. Later editors omitted 1 word at over
twenty verses (whether intentionally or by accident), and they intentionally omitted 21 words at one verse (Exod. 14:10) [because they had been added by mistake].

Later editors changed the number of over 40 words in the 1611 [from singular to plural or from plural to singular]. They made a number of other changes in the 1611.

Now, can we please answer the question without making light of my grammar?

1._______________________________

2._______________________________

 

[HankD]

I further personally believe that that same PERFECT God insured that His Word...which He magnifies ABOVE His NAME....would be accurately and faithfully transmitted (again,by using IMPERFECT men) and PRESERVED in PERFECT FORM...again...After all,God IS a PERFECT God!!!Why is this premise so hard for people to accept.

Because in 1617 the same folks who transmitted this Word via translation in "PERFECT FORM" began to correct this “perfect” Word of God under the direction of the Crown.

So, either they and/or the king of England were wrong to do this or God made some mistakes in that He was unable to control the translators, typesetters and/or printer if we are to believe your premise.

They were in fact the first “Bible correctors” of the AV1611.

1. What was the word-for-word, letter-for-letter perfect English Bible in 1605?

Answer: The King James Bible.

This is an amazing and unique combination of Ruckman "advanced revelation" and
orewellian "double-speak" (IMO of course).


HankD

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by GrannyGumbo:
Tho' some would consider me ancient, I didn't live in 1605...so I don't know what was around then, nor do I have the need to know. What I DO know and the ONLY thing I NEED to KNOW, is the Bible I started out with 50yrs ago, is the one I'll die with...and yes, it is the one & only PERFECT word of God...so there!

Why you wanna start these threads for, I'll never know, nor do I care to know...but I sure hope you'll find your peace.

granny~who's in the REAL game!

The only problem is, GG, that your KJV is nothing more than a version, and even the translators recognized this fact. We're not saying it isn't the Word of God, and yes, in doctrine, as the MV's are, perfect in doctrine and fundamentals. It, however, is not perfect to the point of perfection (no mistakes in translation, and WORD FOR WORD as many here would have us believe and have yet to prove) and neither are any of the MV's. Does this mean God hasn't kept His Word? No, by no means. It does, however, mean that man, translators, are and have been fallible and have indeed made many, many mistakes in the translation of ANY version. Otherwise, there would have been no need for revisions of any of the versions. No one is attacking the KJV, but they are attacking the misrepresentation of the MV's by the KJV Onlyists who will not even admit what the translators themselves admitted, that the KJV is only a translation, updated from other versions, etc. To believe anything else is incorrect, and those are the facts.

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Slambo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It still leaves your belief that the KJV is the 100 % perfect word of God in question, especially in light of all of the revisions its gone through and all the other evidence presented proving that no one version is supported as you would have it believed.

Seems YOU are the one casting doubt!!

Tell me,what did people do BEFORE 1880 when W&H sat down to correct the Bible???
Did they have a word perfect Bible?? Or did God have to wait on two Papal SPIES to come allong to finaly "get it right?" </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but I sincerely doubt that I am the one casting doubt by any means. I don't misrepresent the Word of God, and have made clear where I stand on the KJV. You would have us believe that a bunch of Anglican baby baptizers, and attackers of those who held to the Bibles preceding the KJV as "Holy, honest men"? Don't think so, unless of course you would use revisionist history. Nobody said that W/H finally got it right, and there were other versions based on the same underlying texts they used. So, who's the one trying to cast doubts and dispersions? MV's have been around for many many years, since nearly the beginning of the 20th century. KJV Onlyism has only been around for the past 25-35 years or so. They are the ones causing people to doubt by lying about the MV's and their content, intentionally or not.

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by King James Bible Only:
As av1611jim said, The unicorn mentioned in the word of God is not the mythical one horned horse.

Go to a Dictionary with eytmology such as the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, or go to an Encyclopedia. The unicorn of scripture is none other than a rhinoceros, the English word "unicorn" is taken from the scientific name for that animal.

Lest any think me wrong in that some rhinoceroses have two horns and therefore not a "unicornus," I say now, Those are called "dicornus." It is in the Webster's 1828 Dictionary. I wish that people will do a study of those things some person tells them instead of simply spouting off the first "standard statement" that comes to their mind.

So, what? We have to now have an 1828 Websters dictionary to understand the KJV? Not good. I thought the translation of the Bible into the everyday English of the common man was supposed to make it easier to read. Hmmmm....strange. I don't see in the Bible where I need an 1828 Websters dictionary to understand a translation. Can't you people see, as English evolves, revisions/updates need to be made, and for the most part they have not, at least not concerning the KJV...at least not since 1880 (of course, I'm leaving out the newer versions of the KJV, as most still consider them MV's.... ) .

 

[AVL1984]

I guess todays Webster's wouldn't do in explaining some of the words....especially uh, well the one mentioned in the quotes above...It still calls is "usually a horse". Hmmm.

 

[robycop3]

King James Bible Only:Answer:The King James Bible(Answering Philip's question concerning the perfect British Bible of 1605)

You have one slight prob with that answer, Sir: The KJV didn't exist in 1605.

 

[Brad14]

Just wanted to try and answer Phillips 1st question. By the way Jim and Greg I say Amen to your earlier post on The Word of God.
Phillip, I think the point you are trying to make is that the KJV was not around in 1605 so how can you be, as some may say "KJVO". Well as i have stated before on other post i believe God has preserved His Word without error through the received text. So if an english speaking person wanted to read the Word of God before 1611 they would need to read from a Bible that was translated word-for-word (NOT thought for thought 2 Tim. 3:16)from the received text (textus receptus). So here would be their choices:
1526 Tyndale's Bible ( did not get it completed before he was martyered.)
1535 Coverdale's Bible (1st Complete english translation form the received text.)
1537 Matthews Bible ( 2nd Complete Bible in the english language. RT)
1539-41 The Great Bible (Named for it's size, was simply a revision of the Tyndale Matthew Bible)
1557-60 The Geneva Bible (first complete translation into English from the originals throughout)
1568- The Bishops Bible

 

[robycop3]

Hello, Brad 14!

In following your list, the KJVOs still have a major prob: NONE of the versions you named is like any other. According to KJVO standards, ONLY ONE can be correct. But the KJVOs say God promised to preserve His word UNTO ALL GENERATIONS, while several of the Bibles you name above were written within the same generation, and are different from each other. This leaves only two possibilities: either GOD is wrong or the KJVOs are wrong. Which one do YOU choose?

 

[robycop3]

Philip: 1. What was the word-for-word, letter-for-letter perfect English Bible in 1605?

King James Bible Only:Answer: The King James Bible.

Impossible...It didn't yet exist.

That is the simple answer, I can explain it Biblically, historically, and logically if you like.

Then please DO. Since 1982, I've been reading virtually every pro-KJVO book or article there there is, that's been nationally published...and many local ones which are generally clones of older nationally-published ones. NOT ONE of them can justify the KJVO myth by Scripture; the Scriptures they quote are applicable to every valid version in any given language. The skewed history as presented by the KJVOs is usually incomplete and/or altered to match the KJVO view...and the KJVO myth defies all HONEST logic. It was invented by a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL and spread in the modern media by two dishonest authors. I can easily verify those facts...can YOU verify YOURS?? I'm sure Philip will be as interested as I am, since he, same as I, has NEVER received an honest or factual answer from any KJVO yet concerning some basic cardinal problems with the KJVO myth.

 

[HankD]

According to KJVO standards, ONLY ONE can be correct. But the KJVOs say God promised to preserve His word UNTO ALL GENERATIONS,

And whatever happened to the KJVO mantra "Which I can hold in my hand".

Someone has just made again the often claimed proposition that the 1611 existed "out there" in parts or pieces or fragmented awaiting 1611 to be pieced together.

Well that is exactly what those who promote the crtical text say that the Word of God exists in the several thousands of mss that have been preserved.

Remarkably these several 1000's of mss have been compiled into one standard text modernly called the The Textus Receptus.

Yes there are several versions of the Textus Receptus just as there are several versions of the KJV (1611-1853) due to the process of time and corrections of discovered mistakes.

Why can the KJVO allow themselves this claim about the AV (a compilation of fragments) but we cannot make that claim about the TR and the original language mss?

Of course the KJVO can one-up any critical text supporter with the "fact" that God had to wait until 20th-21st century for a certain individual to discover and publish the key to the several hundred 1611AV "advanced revelations" (which were in reality "mistakes" in disguise) which said individual discovered, then wrote a book about them and then went to the bank with the proceeds thereof.

HankD

[ December 20, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[HankD]

I have many King James Bibles that are exactly in keeping with each other. Buy a Cambridge Large Print Text Bible, buy a Cambrige Concord Text Bible, compare them jot and tittle and point out the variants.

A few months ago a KJVO type said that the use of the phrase "The Christ" was a signature usage of the New Age philosophy.

Matthew 16:16

1611AV ...Thou art Christ...
1769KJV ...Thou art the Christ...

So which is correct the 1611AV or the "New Age" 1769 revision?

HankD

 

[Phillip]

What time do people wake up in Florida? I'm just DYING to hear an explanation of the KJV in 1605 answer.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Brad14:
Just wanted to try and answer Phillips 1st question. By the way Jim and Greg I say Amen to your earlier post on The Word of God.
Phillip, I think the point you are trying to make is that the KJV was not around in 1605 so how can you be, as some may say "KJVO". Well as i have stated before on other post i believe God has preserved His Word without error through the received text. So if an english speaking person wanted to read the Word of God before 1611 they would need to read from a Bible that was translated word-for-word (NOT thought for thought 2 Tim. 3:16)from the received text (textus receptus). So here would be their choices:
1526 Tyndale's Bible ( did not get it completed before he was martyered.)
1535 Coverdale's Bible (1st Complete english translation form the received text.)
1537 Matthews Bible ( 2nd Complete Bible in the english language. RT)
1539-41 The Great Bible (Named for it's size, was simply a revision of the Tyndale Matthew Bible)
1557-60 The Geneva Bible (first complete translation into English from the originals throughout)
1568- The Bishops Bible

I must say that I do respect the fact that you have given an answer. Some of the others seem to have a problem with this.

It appears that you may not be a KJVo as the higher level. In other words, you believe the TR is correct and anything translated properly from it would be correct. Therefore, the NKJV is a satisfactory translation?

I don't think anybody would argue that the NKJV was translated using the TR for the New Testament.

My question was actually, "what was the "word-for-word" accurate Bible in 1605?" In order to answer this, you must believe that there IS a word-for-word accurate English translation. Otherwise, you would have to say that there is no "word-for-word" accurate translation. . . AND, if you do say there is, how do you explain the many differences in wording of the Bibles mentioned above. After all, the Geneva is quite different from the KJV?

If these were all accurate, then why did we need to translate another one (the KJV)?

Again, this is NOT to cast doubt on the KJV being the Word-Of-God, which I believe it is.

Now, if you back down from the English perfection stance, we have a problem because the KJV, unlike the NKJV was not all translated from the TR. Much of it was taken from the Vulgate. Thirteen different pieces of varying manuscripts were used to translate the Revelation of Jesus Christ. The translators had meetings to determine which they would pick and choose.

Now, if you believe God inspired that process, why did the Geneva come up with different wording?

 

[Ziggy]

gps: "I just don't like the way they read in many instances so I reject them."

Seems like that sums the issue up from the KJVO perspective.

In contrast, perhaps *I* don't like the way the KJV reads in Jude 25 as opposed to the RSV because the KJV omits the phrase "through Jesus Christ our Lord":

KJV To the only wise God our Saviour, [be] glory and majesty....

RSV To the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty....

Of course, neither am I pleased that the RSV omits "wise".

So perhaps my solution should be (I speak as a fool) to *conflate* both the KJV and RSV and thereby read an "improved" version that translates a "better" text that happens to appear in *no* existing manuscript:

"To the only wise God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, [be] glory and majesty.....

Sounds good to me, and theologically accurate to boot. But then, I just happen to like the way it reads, and am not worried about any evidence to the contrary (I still speak as a fool).

 

[King James Bible Only]

Originally posted by robycop3:
King James Bible Only:Answer:The King James Bible(Answering Philip's question concerning the perfect British Bible of 1605)

You have one slight prob with that answer, Sir: The KJV didn't exist in 1605.

Sir: I'm sorry, but you have the problem, for the King James Bible did most certainly exist.
Don

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by King James Bible Only:
I'm sorry, but you have the problem, for the King James Bible did most certainly exist.

Explain that, please. My AV1611 says it was published in 1611. Not 1605.

Thanks.

 

[rsr]

Advanced revelation, maybe? It existed, but was waiting to be made manifest.