Makers of KJV as Bible revisers

[Logos1560]

The Scriptures were translated into English before 1611. There was the late 1300's Wycliffe's Bible. There were several English Bibles made and printed in the 1500's.

The makers of the KJV changed and revised the English Bible of their day. Those hundreds and thousands of changes and revisions made to the pre-1611 English Bibles include at least a few textual changes and many, many translational changes.

In addition, the 1611 edition of the KJV was changed and revised in over 2,000 places by later printers and editors of the KJV.

Evangelist Dennis Corle, editor of fundamentalist publication Revival Fires, asserted: "There are Bible believers and there are Bible revisers, but there are NO Bible believing revisionists" (God's Inspired Book The Bible KJV 1611 Inspired Preserved, p. 49).

Dennis Corle claimed: "Make no mistake, to revise the Bible is to change its contents. Though it is perceived as a milder word than is the word translation, it none the less speaks of changing the text" (p. 49).

Does a consistent application of Dennis Corle's statements assert that the makers of the KJV and that the later editors of KJV editions were all non-Bible believing revisionists?

Dennis Corle also asserted: "There are several major reasons for a revision.
First: You are proud enough to assume that you can improve on the King James Bible. That would imply imperfection in the present King James Bible" (p. 51).

According to a consistent application of Corle's reasoning, were the makers of the KJV proud enough to assume that they could improve on the pre-1611 English Bibles?

Were later editors and printers proud enough to assume that they could improve on the 1611 edition of the KJV?

 

[Revmitchell]

And?...................

 

[Rippon]

And?...................

Follow along. Perfection cannot be improved upon.

Based on the thesis of Dennis Corle (which he endorses)the current KJVs are trying to improve perfection since the 1611 KJVs were perfect from the get-go.

The KJV has been revised in many places --it is a fact which runs counter to the views of KJVO folks like Mr. Corle.

Even on the basis of their own criteria the premise of the KJVO mentality falls flat on its face.

 

[JonC]

There is a certain amount of revision and interpretation involved when one translates from one language to another. Words are symbolic for what they actually represent. Translators strive to accurately represent the original language, but subjectivity can be seen in words chosen to represent the native language of the text.



If one accepts Corle’s reasoning, I don’t know how we’d escape determining that the Bible can only be read in its original language or perhaps that God (by special revelation denied other generations) revealed to a specific language group in the post early-Church era His True Word. The former has been purposed but the latter would probably be heresy.

 

[Revmitchell]

Follow along. Perfection cannot be improved upon.

Based on the thesis of Dennis Corle (which he endorses)the current KJVs are trying to improve perfection since the 1611 KJVs were perfect from the get-go.

The KJV has been revised in many places --it is a fact which runs counter to the views of KJVO folks like Mr. Corle.

Even on the basis of their own criteria the premise of the KJVO mentality falls flat on its face.

And?...............

 

[Rippon]

And?...............

What more needs to be explained?

 

[Dr. Bob]

He has no answer to pointing out the folly of the "only" sect and their condemnation of "revisers" when they were the chief "revisers".

They cannot admit that there heroes, those baby-baptizing Anglican translator (not a Baptist among them), were anything less than perfect. Otherwise they would have to admit that the man-made translation is less than perfect.

So expect no debate, just stammering cries of the lost sheep, led astray by the Anglican and Adventist wolves into claiming for a man-made work "divine" status.

 

[Revmitchell]

Well there bobby if you are referring to me you are out of line. I am not now nor have I ever been a KJVO. And In fact I do not use the KJV. Nice of you to add to the ongoing friction around here.

 

[DrJamesAch]

He has no answer to pointing out the folly of the "only" sect and their condemnation of "revisers" when they were the chief "revisers".

They cannot admit that there heroes, those baby-baptizing Anglican translator (not a Baptist among them), were anything less than perfect. Otherwise they would have to admit that the man-made translation is less than perfect.

So expect no debate, just stammering cries of the lost sheep, led astray by the Anglican and Adventist wolves into claiming for a man-made work "divine" status.

And yet the copies of the Hebrew texts that Christ Himself quoted from were copied from scribes that KILLED HIM.

No KJVO claims perfection of the translators. That is a rotten strawman argument against KJVOs. We claim that God preserved His word THROUGH translators the same way He did when He used them to pen it. Difference between KJVO and the rest is that none of you KJVO critics can tell us where we can get a copy of the word of God. KJVO critics spend more time attacking the KJV instead of writing about what's RIGHT about THEIR "preferred" translations, and even then, their preferences in translations changes every other few years. One year it's the NKJV, then 3 years later it's the NASB, then 3 more years it's the ESV, etc..

No KJVO critics believes we have an infallible Bible anywhere. KJVO critics act like evolutionists, depending on the most recent "discovery" to question God's creation because the issue of creation is never settled with them. Since the KJVO critics do not have any settled standard on the word of God, they jump at every so-called "new" discovery, spend hours to "discover" that a KJV edition change "ye" to "you" while the manuscripts they love and support have entire books of the Bible missing.

KJVO critics have done more to shatter faith in the Bible than any KJVO proponent. Such a shame that so many people claim to believe in the sovereignty of God until it comes to Bible translations.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Well there bobby if you are referring to me you are out of line. I am not now nor have I ever been a KJVO. And In fact I do not use the KJV. Nice of you to add to the ongoing friction around here.

I assumed for the non-answer "and" spouted again and again brother that you were arguing on behalf of that sect.

I publically apologize. Actually, I've known you around here for a long time and should remember tiny details (like you are NOT one of that sect). I am old and been hit upside the head once too often . .

I am also truly hateful of those who attack the inspiration of God's Word and try to redefine the "fundamentals" to include the Anglican Version. Sickens me to see Baptists fall for the work of the Adventist Cult (which has since starting this error, has walked away from it and repudiated it as "heresy" - their word, not mine).

We HAVE the God-breathed words - not one lost. And capable to being translated into receptor languages from the Hebrew and Greek.

 

[Revmitchell]

I assumed for the non-answer "and" spouted again and again brother that you were arguing on behalf of that sect.

I publically apologize. Actually, I've known you around here for a long time and should remember tiny details (like you are NOT one of that sect). I am old and been hit upside the head once too often . .

I am also truly hateful of those who attack the inspiration of God's Word and try to redefine the "fundamentals" to include the Anglican Version. Sickens me to see Baptists fall for the work of the Adventist Cult (which has since starting this error, has walked away from it and repudiated it as "heresy" - their word, not mine).

We HAVE the God-breathed words - not one lost. And capable to being translated into receptor languages from the Hebrew and Greek.

I dislike the consistent posts defending the ridiculous KJVO tenants. They are stupid and only show a grand ignorance. At the same time the posts beating up the KJV are just as absurd. One extreme to the other.

I used the KJV for a long time. In fact when I remember scripture in my head I remember it in KJV. But I understand the argument against using it from the pulpit. I spent 6 months researching which modern version I would use and landed on the ESV. None of the translations are perfect translations and regardless of which one we use careful study of background and use of language of the authors time is needed. No translation can remove the need for that.

And your apology is accepted. Thank you.

 

[DrJamesAch]

I assumed for the non-answer "and" spouted again and again brother that you were arguing on behalf of that sect.

I publically apologize. Actually, I've known you around here for a long time and should remember tiny details (like you are NOT one of that sect). I am old and been hit upside the head once too often . .

I am also truly hateful of those who attack the inspiration of God's Word and try to redefine the "fundamentals" to include the Anglican Version. Sickens me to see Baptists fall for the work of the Adventist Cult (which has since starting this error, has walked away from it and repudiated it as "heresy" - their word, not mine).

We HAVE the God-breathed words - not one lost. And capable to being translated into receptor languages from the Hebrew and Greek.

And we KJVOs get criticized and even INFRACTED for disparaging other translations, and yet you call us a CULT??

And you say "We HAVE the God-breathed words-not one is lost". Where is it?? Can I buy it online somewhere? Where can I get a copy of THE God-breathed words. Say if I want to read it while waiting to get my teeth pulled in the dentist lobby, must I read 100 different versions? If I simply want to sit down relax and read "THE" word of God, then WHERE IS IT??

And your statement that KJVO is a product of Wilkinson shows your ignorance of the history of the KJVO movement. Wilkinson has only been credited with the "2 Text" argument- TR vs Alexandrian lines, but not the KJVO movement as a whole. I have demonstrated on here against Robocop and Norris both that such accusation is BOGUS and unfounded and yet the critics continue to promote this absurd fabrication of history.

Not one single KJVO critic HAS "THE" word of God because none of them can ever tell us WHICH ONE it is. You have to own 1000 different translations in order to have it.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

And we KJVOs get criticized and even INFRACTED for disparaging other translations, and yet you call us a CULT??

I am looking for where Dr Bob referred to KJVO as a cult so I can edit it. I so far have missed it. Could you point it out for me please?

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

A different word....

I am looking for where Dr Bob referred to KJVO as a cult so I can edit it. I so far have missed it. Could you point it out for me please?

Roger...I think he actually used the word "sect" in posts #7 & 10 on page 1 of this thread in reference to those of us who would be KJV onlyists. Personally, I don't enjoy or appreciate being "labeled" in that manner either. I am a Bible-believing Christian. It just so happens that I use and recommend ONLY the King James Bible as the Word of God for english-speaking people. When I do that I am recommending a Bible that is undeniably the Word of God. If somebody wants to use something else then that is their business and not subject to my approval or disapproval. I still believe it is the best Bible for our language group.....and always will. I am NOT a member of a sect....I am a Christian. I will say this though...if KJV Onlyists are a "sect"...then we are no more or less so than the Calvinists here. But...that is a whole 'nother can of worms.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[DrJamesAch]

I assumed for the non-answer "and" spouted again and again brother that you were arguing on behalf of that sect.

I publically apologize. Actually, I've known you around here for a long time and should remember tiny details (like you are NOT one of that sect). I am old and been hit upside the head once too often . .

I am also truly hateful of those who attack the inspiration of God's Word and try to redefine the "fundamentals" to include the Anglican Version. Sickens me to see Baptists fall for the work of the Adventist Cult (which has since starting this error, has walked away from it and repudiated it as "heresy" - their word, not mine).

We HAVE the God-breathed words - not one lost. And capable to being translated into receptor languages from the Hebrew and Greek.

I am looking for where Dr Bob referred to KJVO as a cult so I can edit it. I so far have missed it. Could you point it out for me please?

This is a blantant reference used OFTEN by Robocop and Logos that states that the actual origins of the KJVO movement were derived by Benjamin Wilkinson who was a known 7th Day Adventist. It's a snide way to refer to KJVO Baptists as cult followers, and he it's not the only time that others have done this:

Robocop: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1992748&postcount=27

Preacher4Truth http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1988413&postcount=211

Yeshua post #95 http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1977944&highlight=KJVO+cult#post1977944

Sovereign Mercy Post#71 http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=85735&highlight=KJVO+cult&page=8

Luk2427 Post #64 http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1751370&highlight=KJVO+cult#post1751370


ETC....

Now if you want to call us KJVO's "cult" members, then change the rules of the forum that say that KJVO can be called cult members, but KJVOs shall remain silent about the Alexandrian Cult or the RCC Cult. Your rules your boards, but it's getting old seeing professing Christians use double-standards all the time when it comes to the KJV and Calvinism.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This is a blantant reference used OFTEN by Robocop and Logos that states that the actual origins of the KJVO movement were derived by Benjamin Wilkinson who was a known 7th Day Adventist. It's a snide way to refer to KJVO Baptists as cult followers, and he it's not the only time that others have done this:

Robocop: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1992748&postcount=27

Preacher4Truth http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1988413&postcount=211

Yeshua post #95 http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1977944&highlight=KJVO+cult#post1977944

Sovereign Mercy Post#71 http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=85735&highlight=KJVO+cult&page=8

Luk2427 Post #64 http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1751370&highlight=KJVO+cult#post1751370


ETC....

Now if you want to call us KJVO's "cult" members, then change the rules of the forum that say that KJVO can be called cult members, but KJVOs shall remain silent about the Alexandrian Cult or the RCC Cult. Your rules your boards, but it's getting old seeing professing Christians use double-standards all the time when it comes to the KJV and Calvinism.

If any KJVO is ever called a cult member, or KJVOism is ever referred to as a cult I will take action. Please use the 'report post' button if this occurs.

Please indicate where 'professing Christian' have used double standards in moderating the issue of the KJV by reporting a those posts as well.

 

[Baptist4life]

If any KJVO is ever called a cult member, or KJVOism is ever referred to as a cult I will take action. Please use the 'report post' button if this occurs.

Didn't he just do that? I looked at the links he posted and saw it referred to as a cult several times.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Didn't he just do that? I looked at the links he posted and saw it referred to as a cult several times.

Fair enough. After a careful reading I have edited two posts that I felt were in direct violation of our rules.

 

[Logos1560]

This is a blantant reference used OFTEN by Robocop and Logos that states that the actual origins of the KJVO movement were derived by Benjamin Wilkinson who was a known 7th Day Adventist.

You throw out your hasty accusation against me, but evidently you could find no post where I actually state what you claimed.

 

[robycop3]

Dr. Ach:

This is a blantant reference used OFTEN by Robocop and Logos that states that the actual origins of the KJVO movement were derived by Benjamin Wilkinson who was a known 7th Day Adventist. It's a snide way to refer to KJVO Baptists as cult followers, and he it's not the only time that others have done this:

WHOAA! YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

I say without hesitation that Dr. Wilkinson was a cult official. as he was a prominent 7th day adventist who argued that Ellen Gould White's writings were on a par with Scripture. it was HIS book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated(1930) that was the "foundation book" for the current KJVO myth. Now, in all fairness to Dr. W, he didn't write his book with the intent of starting a new doctrine; he wrote it in response to a squabble within his cult.

The current KJVO myth was jumpstarted by J. J. Ray and Dr. D. O. Fuller, who discovered Dr. W's book and copied extensively from it. Now, while Ray outright plagiarized from Dr. W's book without the slightest acknowledgement of Dr. W, Dr. F at least acknowledged Dr. W, but was careful to not reveal Dr. W's CULT AFFILIATION, leaving out any of Dr. W's material that pointed to the SDA. Now, while the plagiarism may have been legal, as Dr. W's book had no USA copyright, and apparently Dr. W had lost interest in it, that plagiarism was still DISHONEST, as was the concealing of Dr. W's SDA officialdom by Dr. F.

Now, Dr. Ach, let't see you name any other origin for the CURRENT KJVO industry

And I have NEVER used the term "KJVO cult" anywhere. mentioning Dr. W's cult affiliation in no way links any KJVO with any cult. However, there ARE cult members who were/are KJVO, with David Koresh and Marshall Applewhite immediately coming to mind. And I have never said that fact impugns the KJV, either.

So, Sir, you might CEASE with the false accusations AT ONCE!