KJVs Gathering Dust?

B.F. Westcott said, of Erasmus, "He (Erasmus) did not engage in Scientific Textual Criticism, but merely passed along the text that had been commonly received by all."

It would seem that Westcott disagrees with your assertion.

 

many of the 5,000 texts were done before the invention of printing, so i suspect the number of printing errors to be exceedingly small.

yea, seekest thou wisdom?

 

I didn't say "scientific textual criticism." My point is this: What do we call it when there are two (or three or four) readings and the textual editor must choose one of them to be "the reading"? We call it textual criticism. That is what Erasmus did; it is what Robinson-Pierpont did; it is what Hodges and Farstad did; it is what Nestle-Aland did; it is what the UBS committee did. In other words, no matter what text you use, it is impossible to escape the necessity of textual criticism. The issue then becomes, what is the best basis on which textual criticism is to be carried out? All of the above disagree (to some extent). And that is where you and I disagree. But this is a legitimate question about which people with equal commitment to the Word of God can disagree without losing their "fundamentalism" or "evangelicalism."

And for wisdomd seeker, you say this one percent of differences included printing errors? How do you have printing errors in the time before printing presses? Is it possible that we are repeating things that have been thought through very well???

[ July 25, 2002, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

To obsess over the term "printing errors" in reference to manuscripts which pre-date Guttenburg is almost as silly as obsessing over "King James Bible" verses "King James Version." It is abundantly clear that the word "printing" can also refer to manuscript. Children "print" all the time using pencils, pens, and crayon. To suggest the manuscripts were not "printed" is just more silly nit-picking.

Print (pr¹nt) n. 1. A mark or an impression made in or on a surface by pressure.

--print v. print·ed, print·ing, prints. --tr. 1. To press (a mark or design, for example) onto or into a surface. American Heritage Dictionary.

Must be another example of inadequate education being blamed on "archaic language!"

 

DocCas, Pastor Larry, Brian, Wisdom seeker,
You're off topic. Take this train of thought to another forum. You shouldn't have any trouble since it's part and parcel of 99% of the other threads in this forum! Now let's get back on topic. Further posts off topic such as these will be deleted. Thank you.

[ July 25, 2002, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

I use a computer bible program for most of my study and preparation. I firmly believe that reading the word with understanding takes time and reflection. The thing God is revealing doesn't always jump out and grab me. At times I take bible tapes on the job with me and hear the scriptures(KJV). I am a primary KJV reader, but will access the other versions on my puter program to get a read of how they "say it". I always go back and balance that against the KJV. I use the "other versions" the way I might use a commentary or dictionary. Bottom line is I give the KJV final authority in my understanding. While I am not a stauch KJVO, I do believe it to be the better translation.

I started my serious search for the truth using "The Word" (living bible), and have no more argument with it than I do with infant formula, which is how I started life. I am now off formula but occationally have a glass of milk. I am now off "the living bible" but occationally have a little drink there too
.
I firmly believe that if we are born again children of God that the Holy Spirit will guide us in all truth!!!!

 

How long will this continue?????? Printing has a very clear connotation in its common use. It is not me who is nitpicking. I took it as commonly used. It is the burden of the communicator to define an uncommon use. Then you follow with another ridiculous unsubstantiated attack on my knoweldge. Keep your personal issues to yourself. No one here is interested.

 

Delete them all as far as I am concerned. However, when statements are made that do not adequately represent reality, they should at least be noted. Personal attacks can always be deleted as far as I am concerned.

 

I think it's a great idea to donate Bibles. We put together John and Romans to pass out to the people of our comunity, and I'm glad we do, because more people are likely to read a bible rather than a tract.
~Abby

 

that's really interesting! i've always heard the opposite. was this a study or based on personal observation? n why?

 

Message erased per Mr. Vols suggestion

[ July 31, 2002, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: WisdomSeeker ]

 

It's not just your posts. There are a select few who seem to believe that it is their purpose in life to take every thread, regardless of topic, and turn it into a mudslinging contest. I was simply trying to act in the best interests of the BB. The frustration of BB members has been echoed to me, in that they cannot bring up substantive issues because the threads get hijacked. I'm simply trying to do right by the people.

 

Brother Glen, of the dozens of e-mails I have received concerning the conduct of a small minority of the contributers to this forum your name has never been mentioned.

 

Message erased per Mr. Vols suggestion

[ July 31, 2002, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: WisdomSeeker ]

 

If you want to discuss these matters, start a new topic. That is the way it's supposed to be done here. Where was I when all this stuff was happening? Good question. I've been off quite a bit caring for my mother who is very ill. I cannot otherwise respond to your post because it would violate BB rules. But if you want to discuss something that's not on topic, start a new topic!

And just a word to Glen. I, too, receive numerous emails about the pugnacious behavior of many. Your name has never come up. You're a rare jewel my friend

[ July 31, 2002, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

I have a question about the Mormon-given KJVs.
At one time, I called their number and asked for
one of their KJVs--not that I wanted or needed
it but because it was free, at their expense, and I
thought I could remove their advertisement for
their church from it and give it to someone who
needed it.

When I received it, I looked through it, and it
seemed in order. I cut out the page with their
church noted on it, and gave it away. I then en-
couraged other established believers to do
the same, with the warning that the Mormons
would request to visit them. Bbut, I told them,
"No" is an easy word to say.

Now, from what I saw, this was a straight-up
KJV with no deviations other than their easily
removeable page. Does anyone know anything
that would dispute that it was a KJV? I thought it
was a great way to get the Bible out to others at
their expense.

 

Message erased per Mr. Vols suggestion

Maybe this isn't a place for an old woman like me. Used to be a person in authority knew how to talk to a lady without making her feel bad. It's this new-age internet, people just don't know who there talking to anymore.

To the originator of this thread, I applogize. I guess I'm getting senile, I didn't realize that I had already replied to this thread. I've erased all my previous remarks.

I would appreciate being able to send any unwanted Bibles to the "bus-kids" or other outreach programs through my church. But, I'm on a fixed income and wouldn't be able to pay for postage. Maybe everyone would like to donate them to there own local outreach programs. The Good Will is also a good place to donate Bibles.

Mrs. L.D. Winkler
Wisdom Seeker

[ July 31, 2002, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: WisdomSeeker ]

 

Abiyah,
I don't know that this would be a good way to do it. If God's people gave as they should, we should be able to adequately distribute Bibles, and then no Bibles would have to gather dust at the bookstore