many varying KJV's; Which KJV?

[makahiya117]

Changes to the KJV since 1611

Changes to the KJV since 1611
Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.
Professor of New Testament Studies
Dallas Theological Seminary

The King James Bible contains 791,328 words.
There have been a grand total of 421 word changes. The 421 total changes amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent.

TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times.
BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times.
AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times.
LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times.
YOU has been changed to YE 82 times.

Out of a grand total of 421 changes from 1611 to the present,
almost 300 of the 421 are of this exact nature !
Now let’s do the math...

By omitting changes of this nature, we now have about 150
(to be conservative) remaining changes. The remaining 150 changes
from 1611 to today are composed of printing errors, spelling standardization, and a few minor phrase changes.

This amounts to one one-hundredth of a percent of the text.

 

[Logos1560]

The 421 total changes

TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times.
BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times.
AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times.
LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times.
YOU has been changed to YE 82 times.

Out of a grand total of 421 changes from 1611 to the present,
almost 300 of the 421 are of this exact nature !

By omitting changes of this nature, we now have about 150
(to be conservative) remaining changes. The remaining 150 changes
from 1611 to today are composed of printing errors, spelling standardization, and a few minor phrase changes.

You are misinformed and are repeating the outdated, incorrect claims of D. A. Waite. Waite's 1985 research was proven to be less than 25% accurate back in 2006 in a booklet entitled Today's KJV and 1611 Compared. You even gave the wrong source for the information you cited since it came from D. A. Waite, not from Daniel B. Wallace.

After being sent a booklet that listed over 2,000 differences between the 1611 and the Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible, Waite finally admitted that his list and count of 421 was incorrect. Waite has now revised his own count up to 1,095, but he does not identify which of the over 2000 actual differences he is trying to exclude.

"You" in the 1611 edition was changed to a nominative case "ye" over 350 times, not 82 times as you claimed. Waite had listed the change of "then" in the 1611 edition to "than" in the present KJV one time when actually there are 483 times this change was made.

Waite failed to find or list many of the actual examples of the type changes that he considered "substantial", and those substantial changes do not include spelling standardization as you incorrectly try to claim.

Six words were added to the 1611 edition at one verse (Eccl. 8:17), three words were added to the 1611 edition at several verses (Lev. 26:40, Num. 7:31, Num. 7:55, Josh. 13:29, 2 Kings 11:10, Ezek. 3:11, 2 Cor. 11:32, 2 Tim. 4:13), two words were added to other verses, and one word was added to over 60 verses. There are also verses where later editions omit one word found in the 1611 edition. There are also verses where the number [singular vs. plural] of words was changed.

 

[makahiya117]

Changes to the KJV since 1611
Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.
Professor of New Testament Studies
Dallas Theological Seminary

The King James Bible contains 791,328 words.
There have been a grand total of 421 word changes. The 421 total changes amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent.

TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times.
BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times.
AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times.
LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times.
YOU has been changed to YE 82 times.

Out of a grand total of 421 changes from 1611 to the present,
almost 300 of the 421 are of this exact nature !
Now let’s do the math...

By omitting changes of this nature, we now have about 150
(to be conservative) remaining changes. The remaining 150 changes
from 1611 to today are composed of printing errors, spelling standardization, and a few minor phrase changes.

This amounts to one one-hundredth of a percent of the text.

I didn't make this statement, Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D., made this statement.

He is the Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.


All KJV Holy Bibles are editions of the AV 1611 KJV Holy Bible first edition.

KJV Holy Bibles are the most published, read and loved bibles of all time.

KJV Holy Bibles are the most published, read and loved books of all time.

( USA Bible Society 2013 )

 

[Logos1560]

I didn't make this statement, Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D., made this statement.

Actually it was KJV defender D. A. Waite who made the incorrect claims that you quoted.

 

[Logos1560]

D. A. Waite admitted that there are "136 substantial changes" between the 1611 KJV and current KJV plus "285 minor changes of form" (Defending the KJB, p. 244, see also pp. 3-4). In another book, Waite noted that he “found only 421 changes to the ear from the 1611 original compared with the 1917 Old Scofield King James Bible of today” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information on Bible Versions, p. 53, see also pp. 90-93). He indicated that he was sure that if another person did the same comparison that they “would get the same results” (p. 93). In yet another book, Waite observed that in “changes of words as to their sound from the King James Bible of 1611 to the present King James Bible there are only 136 differences” (Central Seminary Refuted on Bible Versions, p. 24). He then indicated that if such small things as a change from “towards” to “toward” are included “you get 413 words in all” (p. 25). Later in this same book, he gives his “only 421 translational changes” count (p. 76), but he also gives a count of “only 435 changes” (p. 116). In his original 1985 booklet, Waite did acknowledge that he “might have missed a place or two throughout the course of the Bible” (AV1611 Compared to Today’s KJV, p. 4). He added that he “tried to record them all” (p. 4). He then referred to “the total translation changes of 421” (p. 4).

How accurate and reliable was Waite’s research in comparing these two KJV editions?

Should his count be regarded as an almost complete list of all the changes of sound between these two editions? When Waite used the words “total,” “only,” and “in all“ that are quoted above, does that suggest that his count is presented as a complete or incomplete list of all these changes?

Waite seemed to recommend to others that they use his count when he wrote: “You tell them about the mere 136 changes of substance plus 285 minor changes of form only. Argue them down” (Defending the KJB, p. 244).

 

[Logos1560]

incorrect 421 count

How accurate is this count of 421 changes and this count of only 136 substantial changes?

Waite counted the adding of three words at six different verses (Lev. 26:40, Num. 7:31, 7:55, Ezek. 3:11, 2 Cor. 11:32, 2 Tim. 4:13) as being only one change each and the adding of two words at other verses (Exod. 21:32, Ezek. 34:31) also as one change each (AV1611 Compared to Today‘s KJV, pp. 7, 9, 12, 13). Thus, the adding of twenty-two words is listed and counted as being only eight changes. Can twenty-two actual word changes be accurately listed as only eight? Waite did count the adding of two words at 2 Corinthians 9:6 and at Revelation 5:13 as two changes each (pp. 12-14), which sets a precedent for also counting the above examples as more than one change each. Furthermore, Waite’s listing and count does not include the adding of two words at ten other verses (Exod. 15:25 [“for them”], Exod. 35:11 [“his boards”], Lev. 19:34 [“unto you”], Lev. 26:23 [“by me”], Deut. 26:1 [“thy God”], 1 Sam. 18:27 [“and went”], Ezek. 46:23 [“row of”], John 7:16 [“and said“], 1 John 5:12 [“of God“], Rev. 1:4 [“which are“]), three words at three other verses (Josh. 13:29 [“the children of“], Jud. 1:31 [“of” three times], 2 Kings 11:10 [“of the LORD“]), and six words at one verse (Eccl. 8:17 [“yet he shall not find it”]). Thirty-five more word changes missed by Waite. There are also over 60 verses where later editors added one word that are not included in Waite’s list. There are at least fifteen verses where later editors omitted one word in the 1611 that are not on Waite’s list. Over thirty changes of the number [singular/plural] of words in the 1611 are also not listed. Several other changes like those Waite listed as “substantial” are also not included.

Waite's 421 count has been refuted and shown to be less than 25% accurate since there are actually over 2,000 differences of the same kind that he listed.

I compared the same two editions of the KJV that Waite compared and found that his research was very inaccurate. The same criteria that Waite used for making his list along with his actual examples were used as guidelines in the comparison of the two above KJV editions.

 

[Logos1560]

Ezra 1:2 [see Lev. 14:55, Exod. 12:30, Mark 3:25, Luke 11:17]
a house [1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] (1818, 1819, 1829, 1843, 1853, 1855, 1858, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1826 Boston) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1832 Scott) (1836 Hartford) (1843 AFBS) (1843 Robinson) (1845 Harding) (1846 Portland) (1968 Royal) (1975 Open) (1984, 1991 AMB) (LASB) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard) [NKJV]
an house (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Ezra 1:6 [besides--1560 Geneva, 1602 Bishops, NKJV]
besides (1675, 1679, 1715, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783, 1784 Oxford) [1629, 1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1762, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1817, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611, 1614, 1616, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1660, 1672, 1711, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1760, 1764, 1767, 1879 London} (1638, 1722, 1760, 1766, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1802, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1762 Dublin) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (1791, 1816 Collins) (1801 Hopkins) (1802 Carey) (1810, 1818, 1826 Boston) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1819, 1827, 1829, 1843, 1853, 1855, 1858, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1832 Scott) (1845 Harding) (1846 Portland) (1876 Porter) (1910 Collins) (1984 AMG) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
beside (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Ezra 2:59 [see 1 Chron. 7:2, Ezek. 22:10] [Hebrew for fathers is plural]
their fathers’ house [1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] (2000, 2002 ZOND) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (1833 WEB)
their father’s house (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Ezra 2:65 [Beside--1602 Bishops]
besides (1675, 1709, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1777, 1783, 1804 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1616, 1634, 1640, 1660, 1684, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1764, 1767, 1772, 1879 London} (1755 Oxon) (1722, 1760, 1764, 1769, 1787, 1791, 1793, 1810, 1820 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (1791 Collins) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1815 Carey) (1807 Johnson) (1814, 1832 Scott) (1818, 1827, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1858, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1818, 1826 Boston) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1831 Brown) (1832 PSE) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1854 Harding) (1876 Porter) (1910 Collins) (WMCRB) (1984 AMG) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard) [NKJV]
beside (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Ezra 2:69 [pieces--1560 Geneva; pound--1602 Bishops]
five thousand pounds (1772 Oxford) (1791, 1816 Collins) (1801 Hopkins) (1807 Johnson) (1809, 1810, 1818, 1826, 1828 Boston) (1814, 1832, 1835 Scott) (1818 Holbrook) (Clarke) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1843, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1858, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1831 Brown) (1832 PSE) (1836 Hartford) (1843, 1856 AFBS) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Portland) (1853 Butler) (1845, 1854, 1876 Harding) (1859 RTS) (1911 TCE) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1948 WSE) (1968 Royal) (1975 Open) (1976 BH) (CSB) (RRB) (WMCRB) (LASB) (1833 WEB)
five thousand pound (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Ezra 3:11 [sang--1560 Geneva, 1602 Bishops]
sung (1675, 1709, 1715, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1817, 1873 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1640, 1644, 1672, 1684, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1759, 1767 London} (1755 Oxon) (1722, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1746 Leipzig) (1807 Johnson) (1808 MH) (1815 Carey) (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1843 AFBS) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (DSB) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
sang (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1660 London}

Ezra 3:11 [toward--1560 Geneva; upon--1602 Bishops]
towards (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1817, 1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611, 1614, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1735, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1772 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (1791, 1816 Collins) (1801 Hopkins) (1807 Johnson) (1814 Scott) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1832 PSE) (1843 AFBS) (1854 Harding) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
toward (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1613, 1616 London}

Ezra 4:11 [Thy servants the men--1560 Geneva; Thy servants, and the men--1602 Bishops]
Thy servants [1629, 1637, 1817 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1672 London} (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1832 PSE) (1843 AFBS) (1854 Harding)
Thy servants the men (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1638, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Ezra 4:13 [be buylt--1560 Geneva; be builded--1602 Bishops] [is built--NKJV]
be built [2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1660 London} (1700 MP) (EB) (E-R) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
be builded (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Ezra 4:21 [buylt--1560 Geneva; builded--1602 Bishops] [built--NKJV]
built [2005, 2001 Cambridge] {1660 London} (1700 MP) (EB) (E-R) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
builded (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Ezra 7:14 [counselers--1560 Geneva; counsellers--1602 Bishops]
counsellers (1715, 1728, 1769, 1787, 1791, 1792, 1795, 1795e, 1798, 1800, 1803, 1804 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1743, 1747, 1760, 1765, 1768, 1769, 1773, 1778, 1790, 1795, 1800, 1822, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1873, 1887 Cambridge, 1953 PM, 2011 PMR] {1611, 1614, 1617, 1640, 1644, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1813, 1814, 1817, 1819, 1824, 1825 London} (1638, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764 Edinburgh) (1700 MP) (1834 Coit) (1975, 1999 Collins) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TLPSB) (MSB) (DSB) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (2010 LCBP) (HKJVSB) (NCE)
counsellours (1679, 1709 Oxford) [1683 Cambridge] {1613, 1616, 1634 London}
counselors (1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1975 Open) (CSB) (RRB) (WMCRB) (1991 AMG) (KJRLB) (E-R) (1833 WEB) [NKJV]
counsellors (1675, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1778, 1783, 1784, 1788, 1810, 1812, 1821, 1828 Oxford, SRB, SSB, Oxford Classic, NPB) [1762, 1763B, 1767, 2005, 2011 Cambridge, CCR, CSTE, DKJB] {1660, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1795, 1838, 1860, 1877, 1879, 1976 London} (1755 Oxon) (1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1810, 1820, 1842, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1762 Dublin) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (1791 Collins) (1791 Thomas) (1801 Hopkins) (1802 Carey)

Ezra 7:14 [thy hand--1602 Bishops]
thy hand [2005, 2011 Cambridge] (1819, 1829, 1843 ABS) (1826 Boston) (1827 Smith) (1832 PSE) (1832 Scott) (1845, 1854 Harding) (1846 Portland) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
thine hand (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Ezra 7:18 [and gold--1560 Geneva, 1568 & 1602 Bishops] [see Ezra 7:15]
and gold (1675, 1679, 1709, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1772 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1735, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1764, 1767, 1772 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (1791 Collins) (1801 Hopkins) (1808 MH) (1809, 1810, 1818 Boston) (1813, 1815 Carey) (1829 ABS) (1843 AFBS) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (1833 WEB)
and the gold (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1760, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Ezra 9:3
astonished (1754, 1758, 1765, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1778 Oxford) [1743, 1747, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1684, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1772 London} (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (1803 Etheridge) (1808, 1828 MH) (1818, 1819, 1829, 1843, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1858, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1826 Boston) (1832 PSE) (1832 Scott) (1836 Hartford) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1854 Harding) (1911 TCE) (1948 WSE) (1968 Royal) (1975 Open) (CSB) (RRB) (WMCRB) (LASB) (1984, 1991 AMG) (KJRLB) (DSB) (E-R) (2006 PENG) (1842 Bernard) [NKJV]
astonied (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1637, 1638, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[Logos1560]

Now, I do believe the "translation" was perfect, but not the printing.

But I do believe the translators got the translation jot and tittle perfect.

Later editors of the KJV did not agree with you.

Based on their comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, later editors made corrections to the translation decisions of the KJV translators. Here are a few examples of many that could be given.

Concerning "names of other gods" in the 1611 at Exodus 23:13, David Norton noted: "1769 corrects in the light of the Hebrew" (A Textual History of the KJB, p. 208).

Concerning Lev. 1:9, David Norton noted: "1638 is a correction in the light of the Hebrew" (p. 212).

Concerning Lev. 10:14, David Norton noted: "1629 is a correction in the light of the Hebrew, but 1611 appears to be deliberate" (p. 212).

Concerning Lev. 20:11, Norton wrote: "1638 corrects in the light of the Hebrew and the translators' rendering of the same words in the following verses" (p. 214).

Concerning Lev. 23:20, Norton wrote: "1638 is a correction in the light of the Hebrew" (p. 214).

Concerning walls at Lev. 25:31, Norton wrote: "1769 corrects in the light of the Hebrew" (p. 215).

 

[Winman]

Later editors of the KJV did not agree with you.

Based on their comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, later editors made corrections to the translation decisions of the KJV translators. Here are a few examples of many that could be given.

Concerning "names of other gods" in the 1611 at Exodus 23:13, David Norton noted: "1769 corrects in the light of the Hebrew" (A Textual History of the KJB, p. 208).

Concerning Lev. 1:9, David Norton noted: "1638 is a correction in the light of the Hebrew" (p. 212).

Concerning Lev. 10:14, David Norton noted: "1629 is a correction in the light of the Hebrew, but 1611 appears to be deliberate" (p. 212).

Concerning Lev. 20:11, Norton wrote: "1638 corrects in the light of the Hebrew and the translators' rendering of the same words in the following verses" (p. 214).

Concerning Lev. 23:20, Norton wrote: "1638 is a correction in the light of the Hebrew" (p. 214).

Concerning walls at Lev. 25:31, Norton wrote: "1769 corrects in the light of the Hebrew" (p. 215).

Could you please show what these corrections were? Please show what the 1611 originally said, and show these present corrections.

What you have showed in previous posts is not convincing at all. I do not see a minor textual change where a word like "and" is added as indication the previous rendering inaccurate or error.

For example- their fathers' house vs. their father's house. This is nothing but nit-picking.

Or "five thousand pounds" vs. "five thousand pound". Is this seriously what you are worried about? But you do not worry about a text that leaves out a complete passage such as the last 12 verses of Mark 16?

You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

And I owe you no apology, you do not believe any copy in the original languages is inerrant, so you do not believe in preservation at all.

As far as all the extant manuscripts, I have not examined them, and I doubt you have examined all of them yourself. I would bet that many are perfectly accurate and without error. I believe the KJB translators examined many manuscripts to determine the inerrant text.

 

[Logos1560]

I believe the KJB translators examined many manuscripts to determine the inerrant text.

You just choose to wish and believe whatever agrees with your unproven, subjective opinions regardless of the truth or regardless of established historical facts.

You do not know, but you merely assume and speculate to fit your own inconsistent opinions.

Do you try to examine the evidence before throwing out your speculations?

 

[Winman]

You just choose to wish and believe whatever agrees with your unproven, subjective opinions regardless of the truth or regardless of established historical facts.

You do not know, but you merely assume and speculate to fit your own inconsistent opinions.

Do you try to examine the evidence before throwing out your speculations?

Wow, you are finally beginning to understand me. I have been telling you over and over I cannot prove God preserved his word in the KJB, but that I believe it by faith.

You are correct, I ASSUME it is true. Why? Because God promised many times to preserve his word and I simply BELIEVE IT. I don't spend that much time trying to understand it, just as I don't spend much time trying to figure out how God spoke the universe into existence, I simply believe it because that is what the scriptures say.

You really don't understand faith at all do you? Faith is basically believing what God has said. You don't have to understand it, just believe it. Try it sometime, you'll like it.

 

[jbh28]

That's a true statement. there are no two manuscripts that read a like.
True, God never promised that a copyist would be kept from error. God promised to preserve his words, not keep every copy free from error or any translation free from error.



You still haven't answered the question. do you not want to answer it for any particular reason?

"Was there a perfect text, manuscript or translation in 1610?"

Hello Winman....care to answer the question. I can make it multiple choice if you like.

A. Yes, there was a perfect text or manuscript or translation in 1610.
B. No, there was no perfect text or manuscript or translation in 1610.

 

[Winman]

Hello Winman....care to answer the question. I can make it multiple choice if you like.

A. Yes, there was a perfect text or manuscript or translation in 1610.
B. No, there was no perfect text or manuscript or translation in 1610.

Oh, I know you've asked me several times, and it is no accident I have not answered.

I simply enjoy keeping you in suspense. :laugh:

 

[Logos1560]

You really don't understand faith at all do you? Faith is basically believing what God has said. You don't have to understand it, just believe it. Try it sometime, you'll like it.

I understand what the Bible teaches about faith. Perhaps it is you that don't. You seem to misuse "faith" to try to excuse or cover over wishful thinking, speculations, assumptions, or subjective opinions.

I believe what the Scriptures actually teach. My view is soundly based on scriptural truths that would be true both before and after 1611 and that would be true for all believers regardless of the language that they speak.

Disagreeing with your subjective opinions does not indicate any lack of faith as you seem to assume. What God has said in the Scriptures does not match up with the fallacies, divers measures, and subjective opinions evident in a man-made KJV-only theory.

A modern, man-made KJV-only theory that is not stated nor taught in the Scriptures does not demonstrate that someone believe what God actually said. A KJV-only theory depends upon fallacies and divers measures in contradiction to what the Scriptures teach. God did not say that the word of God is bound or limited to the textual criticism decisions and translating decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611. God did not say show partiality to one exclusive group of scholars in 1611. God did not say use fallacies and divers measures in claiming to believe by faith something that is not taught in the Scriptures. God did not say use a different standard for determining what the Scriptures are before 1611 and use a different standard after 1611. God did not say use one standard for evaluating the doctrinal views and practices of the Church of England translators of the KJV but use different standards for other translators. God did not say that English-speaking believers are to read and use only the KJV. God did not say that one translation in English is inerrant.

 

[jbh28]

Oh, I know you've asked me several times, and it is no accident I have not answered.

I simply enjoy keeping you in suspense. :laugh:

It's probably because you realize the error of your ways.

I'm going to assume your answer is no. Wasn't the Bible still preserved just as God promised in 1610 even though there was no perfect text, manuscript or translation? Of course it was. You keep saying that you believe God will preserve His word.

You made 2 statements.

"Because God promised many times to preserve his word and I simply BELIEVE IT."

That's true and that's exactly why you should believe that. God said he would preserve his word and therefore you believe Him.

But you also said, "I have been telling you over and over I cannot prove God preserved his word in the KJB, but that I believe it by faith. "

Where did God say he would preserve his word in the KJV? no where....
where did God say He would preserve his word in any English translation? no where...

where did God say He would preserve His word in any translation in any language...no where

If God's promise was true in 1610, where no one manuscript, Greek/Hebrew text or translation could be said to be 100% perfect, then it can be true today without the KJV being perfect.

Believing God would preserve his word doesn't equal believing God would preserve His word in a particular translation. Believing that is adding to God's word and what He said. You cannot claim it's by faith because God never said it. In fact, saying it's by faith means you are putting faith in something other than what God said.

 

[Winman]

It's probably because you realize the error of your ways.

Not at all.

I'm going to assume your answer is no. Wasn't the Bible still preserved just as God promised in 1610 even though there was no perfect text, manuscript or translation? Of course it was. You keep saying that you believe God will preserve His word.

Well, you know what happens when you assume...

Now think for a minute, if God has promised to preserve his word to all generations (which he has), then wouldn't his word ALWAYS be in the world?

I know you can figure this one out.

You made 2 statements.

"Because God promised many times to preserve his word and I simply BELIEVE IT."

That's true and that's exactly why you should believe that. God said he would preserve his word and therefore you believe Him.

I am glad you see the logic in this.

But you also said, "I have been telling you over and over I cannot prove God preserved his word in the KJB, but that I believe it by faith. "

OK, I did not think I had to tell you what faith is, faith is the evidence of things NOT SEEN. If someone showed me exactly where God's word was preserved before 1611 I would not have to believe it was preserved by faith, I would KNOW where it is preserved.

I actually believe it was preserved in many texts that the KJB translators considered. Some here, and some there. I believe they were able to determine the correct texts. Of course I believe God was behind this. The translators themselves would never claim to be inerrant.

Now that said, I believe the scriptures went through a purification. Psalm 12:6-7 says God's word is like silver that has been tried in a furnace seven times. I happen to work in metallurgy, it is a fascinating field. To this day we use various steps to purify metals. It is an ancient art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy

In the old days they would melt metals and skim impurities off the top. They would do this several times until the metal was pure. This is how God himself describes his word, so I believe it is to be understood that God's word would go through such a process.

That said, I can't prove this. Remember, I believe this by FAITH, so quit asking me to prove these things to you.

Where did God say he would preserve his word in the KJV? no where....
where did God say He would preserve his word in any English translation? no where...

So what? That does not mean God could not preserve his word in the KJB. You are smart enough to know that.

where did God say He would preserve His word in any translation in any language...no where

Again, you know better.

If God's promise was true in 1610, where no one manuscript, Greek/Hebrew text or translation could be said to be 100% perfect, then it can be true today without the KJV being perfect.

How do you know that no manuscript was perfect? I am willing to bet many were, only they were incomplete. You may have had a manuscript that contained only one book, or even just one chapter, but it may have been perfect. In fact, I would bet many of the manuscripts were inerrant, just incomplete. These can be used to put together an inerrant canon.

Believing God would preserve his word doesn't equal believing God would preserve His word in a particular translation. Believing that is adding to God's word and what He said. You cannot claim it's by faith because God never said it. In fact, saying it's by faith means you are putting faith in something other than what God said.

It doesn't exclude it either. You accuse me of making assumptions when that is exactly what you are doing as well. You ASSUME God could not preserve his word in a particular translation.

Fact is, God warns against adding or diminishing from his word, that would argue against God's word being preserved in many various versions and supports that it would be preserved in one inerrant version.

But remember, I can't prove this. So don't ask me for proof, I simply believe by faith.

You guys need to understand faith. Faith is believing God's promises without proof. Asking for proof is not being believing.

 

[jbh28]

Now think for a minute, if God has promised to preserve his word to all generations (which he has), then wouldn't his word ALWAYS be in the world?

Yes, but that's not the point.

I actually believe it was preserved in many texts that the KJB translators considered. Some here, and some there. I believe they were able to determine the correct texts. Of course I believe God was behind this. The translators themselves would never claim to be inerrant.

Ok, so the Bible was not perfect in any particular manuscript, text or translation prior to 1611, but yet you would agree that God has preserved His word. So obviously, having a perfect translation isn't required to believe God has preserved His word. You owe Logos and others an apology for falsely saying they don't believe God preserve His words, yet you say that He has when the Bible is "in many texts."

Now that said, I believe the scriptures went through a purification. Psalm 12:6-7 says God's word is like silver that has been tried in a furnace seven times. I happen to work in metallurgy, it is a fascinating field. To this day we use various steps to purify metals. It is an ancient art.

Psalm 12 says the words of God are pure, but it has nothing to do with the preservation of Scripture. (Even the KJV translators said that) Also, God's words are pure(Psalm 12:6) and do not need to be purified. There is no purification needed for the pure words of God.

That said, I can't prove this. Remember, I believe this by FAITH, so quit asking me to prove these things to you.

Prove using the Bible. Use the Bible Use the Bible

So what? That does not mean God could not preserve his word in the KJB. You are smart enough to know that.

Of course God's words are preserved in the KJV. As they are in the ESV, the NIV, the Greek manuscripts, the Latin Manuscripts., and thousands of other examples.

Again, you know better.

Of course I do, you are the one that doesn't know better.

How do you know that no manuscript was perfect?

No two are a like. It's not that hard.

I am willing to bet many were, only they were incomplete. You may have had a manuscript that contained only one book, or even just one chapter, but it may have been perfect.

That's how most of them are. Most are copies of one book, but no two manuscripts agree 100%. We are not talking about where one book has John, and one has Ephesians. The point is that there is no perfect manuscript copy of the Bible

In fact, I would bet many of the manuscripts were inerrant, just incomplete. These can be used to put together an inerrant canon.

You make assumptions despite the evidence in front of you.

It doesn't exclude it either. You accuse me of making assumptions when that is exactly what you are doing as well. You ASSUME God could not preserve his word in a particular translation.

Yes I can. Was the bible preserved in 1610? Yes it was, my point Also, I have no Bible that says he would, so therefore I cannot under any circumstances claim that he would pick a translation and make it perfect. And I cannot not say it's by faith. That would be a lie since it's not in the Bible, you just made it up.

Fact is, God warns against adding or diminishing from his word, that would argue against God's word being preserved in many various versions and supports that it would be preserved in one inerrant version.

Not at all. God did warn against adding or subtracting from his word, but that in no way says that there would be a perfect translation. Not even close.

But remember, I can't prove this. So don't ask me for proof, I simply believe by faith.

No, you believe because someone lied to you. Your faith is not in what the Bible says. It's a faith in a lie, not a faith in the Bible.

You guys need to understand faith. Faith is believing God's promises without proof. Asking for proof is not being believing.

Your faith is not in any promise of God. If it were, you wouldn't argue for a perfect translation since you say that it was in conflicting texts prior to the KJV.

 

[Winman]

Yes, but that's not the point.

Ok, so the Bible was not perfect in any particular manuscript, text or translation prior to 1611, but yet you would agree that God has preserved His word. So obviously, having a perfect translation isn't required to believe God has preserved His word. You owe Logos and others an apology for falsely saying they don't believe God preserve His words, yet you say that He has when the Bible is "in many texts."

You keep saying the scriptures were not perfect in any particular manuscript. How do you know this? I would bet many manuscripts have no errors in them.

And this is why I DO NOT owe Logos an apology, he believes as you do, that all copies have errors, and therefore no inerrant text can be derived from them. He does not believe the word of God is preserved at all, at least not in the sense that most define "preservation". Being corrupt is not being preserved.

In addition, a manuscript might have one book or passage perfect, while it might have one small punctuation error in another book, but it can still be used to determine the correct text in combination with other manuscripts.

Psalm 12 says the words of God are pure, but it has nothing to do with the preservation of Scripture. (Even the KJV translators said that) Also, God's words are pure(Psalm 12:6) and do not need to be purified. There is no purification needed for the pure words of God.

That is your opinion. I can read and I believe it is quite clear these verses are a promise from God to preserve his words to all generations.

Prove using the Bible. Use the Bible Use the Bible

The scripture says his words are as silver tried seven times in a furnace. That is a purification process. It directly says his words are "purified" seven times. This is you error, you are not paying attention.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Of course God's words are preserved in the KJV. As they are in the ESV, the NIV, the Greek manuscripts, the Latin Manuscripts., and thousands of other examples.

This is what Logos is saying as well. Do you really think folks are fooled by this? In your view, God's word is preserved in ANY Greek manuscript, even if it is a receipe for Chicken and Rice soup. :laugh:

Of course I do, you are the one that doesn't know better.

No two are a like. It's not that hard. That's how most of them are. Most are copies of one book, but no two manuscripts agree 100%. We are not talking about where one book has John, and one has Ephesians. The point is that there is no perfect manuscript copy of the BibleYou make assumptions despite the evidence in front of you.

I would bet they are more alike than you are portraying them. If two texts are identical except one word is spelled different, that is no difference. And those are in fact the types of differences that distinguish most texts from what I have read. I have read most differences are "very minor". I would bet MANY agree word for word.

Yes I can. Was the bible preserved in 1610? Yes it was, my point Also, I have no Bible that says he would, so therefore I cannot under any circumstances claim that he would pick a translation and make it perfect. And I cannot not say it's by faith. That would be a lie since it's not in the Bible, you just made it up.

I just believe God promised to preserve his word, I do not know exactly HOW he did it. But you cannot assume God couldn't use the KJB translators to do so, that may have been exactly how he did it for all you know. See, it is you making assumptions now.

Not at all. God did warn against adding or subtracting from his word, but that in no way says that there would be a perfect translation. Not even close.

Word for word would argue against many different versions that do not agree word for word.

No, you believe because someone lied to you. Your faith is not in what the Bible says. It's a faith in a lie, not a faith in the Bible.

I do not believe things just because someone said them. If so, I would believe in Original Sin like you do, wouldn't I?

Your faith is not in any promise of God. If it were, you wouldn't argue for a perfect translation since you say that it was in conflicting texts prior to the KJV.

My faith is 100% in God's promise to preserve his words, that is why I believe an inerrant version exists, it is you that does not believe this.

 

[Logos1560]

contradictory nonsense

OK, I did not think I had to tell you what faith is, faith is the evidence of things NOT SEEN.

If someone showed me exactly where God's word was preserved before 1611 I would not have to believe it was preserved by faith, I would KNOW where it is preserved.

Remember, I believe this by FAITH, so quit asking me to prove these things to you.

You guys need to understand faith. Faith is believing God's promises without proof. Asking for proof is not being believing.

Are you contradicting yourself? Are you saying that you can only believe by faith things that are not seen while claiming to believe something you can see and read [the KJV]? Are you actually suggesting that if you can show someone where the word of God is preserved today you are not believing it by faith? Are you saying that you cannot know and see where God's word is preserved to be able to believe by faith that it is preserved? Are you smart enough to see that you cannot claim to believe something [the KJV] by faith when you can see it according to a consistent application of some of your own claims?

Do you show that you understand faith when you make such contradictory claims about it?

 

[HankD]

Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

From the 1611 KJV Preface - To the Reader - In defense of other translations (plural).

Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded.

ibid.

HankD