many varying KJV's; Which KJV?

[Logos1560]

no purification process taught

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.

Psalm 12 does not refer to any "purification process." Your misinterpretation suggests that the words that proceeded directly from the mouth of God had some impurities in them and needed to go through a purification process. Psalm 12 is not saying that there were some impurities in the words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles and that they had to go through a purification process to remove them. You are emphasizing the wrong part of the verse and misinterpreting it in such a way that it makes it contradict the truth that was stated.

The phrase "purified seven times" (Ps. 12:6) confirms the truth of the earlier statement "the words of the LORD are [100%] pure words" and thus it indicates that God's Word was 100% absolutely, completely, and perfectly pure when given by God. This phrase clearly does not indicate that the words of God had some impurities or contamination and needed to go through an improvement process of seven purifications in seven English translations or in seven purifications of the various editions of the KJV. What is stated is the fact that "the words of the LORD are pure words" meaning 100% absolute pure, and then an illustration or comparison is given [as] to confirm that truth, not to contradict it by suggesting that there were some impurities in the pure words.

KJV defender Thomas Corkish agreed: “Some have mistakenly said that the Bible has need to be ’tried’ (’refined’) seven times in order for it to be given as ’pure.’ Actually, it was as ’refined’ silver from the beginning” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, pp. 143-144). He added: “The Bible is not a pure Word because of any derivation, development, revision, recovery, or improvement” (p. 149). KJV-only author Gary Miller wrote: “Purifying something seven times makes it almost perfect. But God’s words are perfect” (Why the KJB, p. 16). H. D. Williams acknowledged: “God’s Words are in no need of being ’cleansed’ or ’purified’” (Pure Words, p. 53).

 

[HankD]

True but we started out with an assessment of a Translation The 1611 English KJV which did go through a purification process of over 200 years.

I'm not saying that this passage applies to the KJV (although some may) just reminding ourselves of the thrust of the opening post.

HankD

 

[HankD]

As an after thought we do need to be mindful of the KJV source - The Church of England.

Still divided internally as to the authority of Rome and with romish doctrines and practices to this very day.

Here is a "what if":

What would happen today in the 21st century if a Bible was published with the Apocrypha in between the Testaments with no internal documentation or explanation concerning its canonicity (its a rhetorical question)?

We do need to face certain facts and its not deriding the 1611 KJV but a fact which we need to consider in the whole scope of the history of the English Bible.
On the other hand the CoE was meticulous about correcting the words, letters and punctuation over the years.

My own premise is that we need to look at those publications which dealt with the collection/collation of the original language mss into the corresponding Old and New Covenants of their respective languages.

This was the premise of the KJV translators which makes the most sense (IMO).

In my estimation Wescott and Hort were incorrect with their premises:
"Oldest" is best (mss), "shortest" is best (rendering) and they therefore chose Alexandrian texts as better. The church (IMO) has suffered ever since. That is my opinion and yes in the realm of possibilty I could be wrong (but I don't think so).

Generally speaking the Traditional Text came out of the local churches of Asia Minor and Europe as a result of the missionay efforts of the apostles.

There is a second component to the publishing of a Bible: the current language and nuance of the readers.

IMO, The modern English bibles have done a better job.

It can be complicated if we let it.

HankD

 

[Baptist4life]

IMO

That sums up every single KJVO debate I've ever seen. "In MY OPINION" or the opinion of people who agree with me.

NEITHER side has anything more than that.

 

[Yeshua1]

As an after thought we do need to be mindful of the KJV source - The Church of England.

Still divided internally as to the authority of Rome and with romish doctrines and practices to this very day.

Here is a "what if":

What would happen today in the 21st century if a Bible was published with the Apocrypha in between the Testaments with no internal documentation or explanation concerning its canonicity (its a rhetorical question)?

We do need to face certain facts and its not deriding the 1611 KJV but a fact which we need to consider in the whole scope of the history of the English Bible.
On the other hand the CoE was meticulous about correcting the words, letters and punctuation over the years.

My own premise is that we need to look at those publications which dealt with the collection/collation of the original language mss into the corresponding Old and New Covenants of their respective languages.

This was the premise of the KJV translators which makes the most sense (IMO).

In my estimation Wescott and Hort were incorrect with their premises:
"Oldest" is best (mss), "shortest" is best (rendering) and they therefore chose Alexandrian texts as better. The church (IMO) has suffered ever since. That is my opinion and yes in the realm of possibilty I could be wrong (but I don't think so).

Generally speaking the Traditional Text came out of the local churches of Asia Minor and Europe as a result of the missionay efforts of the apostles.

There is a second component to the publishing of a Bible: the current language and nuance of the readers.

IMO, The modern English bibles have done a better job.

It can be complicated if we let it.

HankD

WHICH 'traditional txt' though would be regarded as being the best one? Didn't erasmus have something like 5 differing versions to work with, and he also compiled it by looking at Vulgate renderings at times also?

still don't there there has EVER been JUST one text of the greek, either MT/CT/TR, has there been?

 

[Yeshua1]

wasn't this just a figure of speech to relect that the words of the lord in the scriptures are pure and refined?

 

[jbh28]

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.

No two manuscripts are alike, so they can't be perfect. There are documented errors in them. But most of these errors are very minor. (like "hte" error you see here) Easy to see that it was copied incorrectly.

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.

Again, you do ow Logos and others an apoplogy. No perfect text nor translation was in existence in 1610, yet you would say the Bible is preserved.

And what do you mean by "no inerrant text can be derived from them." If you mean that no one has made a perfect translation, yes. No one is perfect. God never promised a perfect translation.

But the point is that there was no text(compilation of the manuscripts together) nor translation in 1610 that was perfect, yet you would say the Bible is perfect.

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.

of course. Most errors are extremely easy to see what was done incorrectly and are of no issue what so ever.

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.

No an opinion, "him" cannot refer to words. Gramatically it cannot work. The word "them" in the KJV comes from the Hebrew word meaning "him." It's "them" in the KJV(and others) for English grammatical reasons, referring to the people.

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.

The words are pure. Period. End of discussion. If you say they needed to be purified, you are saying that the words were not perfect to begin with. It's pure like silver that has been tried in a furnace, purified seven times. Silver(like other medals) are purified by heat. They become pure. So the words of God are pure like silver that has been purified seven times.

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:

Um, you said this is true in 1610 that no text or translation was perfect. You said your self that the Bible was preserved in the different Greek manuscripts.

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.

Actually it is a difference. But its a difference that is very easy to see. It's not a variant that anyone wonders about, but a variant none the less.

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, differences are "very minor" I've said that for years. But no two are alike.

I just believe God promised to preserve his word, I do not know exactly HOW he did it.

Good so far

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.

No, because the KJV wasn't around in 1610. Also, there is no promise in the Bible that says that any translation would be perfect. So you believe the Bible is preserved is by faith, believe it's in the KJV is faith in something God didn't say. I cannot assume it's in the KJV(as you do) because I have nothing in the Bible to base that assumption on.

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.

But that's not consistent if God's promise to preserve his words in 1610 was true, yet no inerrant version existed then. That's where your "faith" is not in anything God said.

 

[HankD]

WHICH 'traditional txt' though would be regarded as being the best one? Didn't erasmus have something like 5 differing versions to work with, and he also compiled it by looking at Vulgate renderings at times also?

still don't there there has EVER been JUST one text of the greek, either MT/CT/TR, has there been?

Yes, you are correct in that he compiled a NT in AD1516 (1st Edition) from many sources.

But he wasn't alone, there were many others of reknown: i.e. Stephanus (1550), Beza (1598?), Elzevir (1624, - I believe this was called Textus Receptus).

And yes sometimes the Latin Vulgate was used to "fill in the blanks".

Then in 1894 Scrivener compiled his NT corresponding to the English of the 1611 drawing from most of these scribes (probably not Elzevir, but I don't know).
Personally I believe Scrivener's text to be the reconstruction of the NT.

The "Traditional Text" is a one-size-fits-all for any collation of the multidude of texts of the Byzantine family apart from what some call the Majority Text.

Myself, I would include the Majority text as under the Traditional Text umbrella.

These scribal texts are virtually identical.

No doubt some of what I said here from memory can be challenged and some is my opinion.


HankD

 

[HankD]

That sums up every single KJVO debate I've ever seen. "In MY OPINION" or the opinion of people who agree with me.

NEITHER side has anything more than that.

Not all on either side have a cookie-cutter view
Not everyone considers their view an opinion but the pure truth.

But without the originals, you are correct. We can't know by using the imperative methods of science alone.

But that doesn't preclude a faith choice on the individual's part.

IMO.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, you are correct in that he compiled a NT in AD1516 (1st Edition) from many sources.

But he wasn't alone, there were many others of reknown: i.e. Stephanus (1550), Beza (1598?), Elzevir (1624, - I believe this was called Textus Receptus).

And yes sometimes the Latin Vulgate was used to "fill in the blanks".

Then in 1894 Scrivener compiled his NT corresponding to the English of the 1611 drawing from most of these scribes (probably not Elzevir, but I don't know).
Personally I believe Scrivener's text to be the reconstruction of the NT.

The "Traditional Text" is a one-size-fits-all for any collation of the multidude of texts of the Byzantine family apart from what some call the Majority Text.

Myself, I would include the Majority text as under the Traditional Text umbrella.

These scribal texts are virtually identical.

No doubt some of what I said here from memory can be challenged and some is my opinion.


HankD

So you would agree with me that there has never been a SOLE text received by the Church as being ONLY text, despite the best efforts of the KJVO to get it portrayed as such?

 

[HankD]

So you would agree with me that there has never been a SOLE text received by the Church as being ONLY text, despite the best efforts of the KJVO to get it portrayed as such?

Yes, I agree. Except that a true KJVO would tell you that the AD1611 AV English can be used to correct the Greek and Hebrew (or so I have read).

That defies logic.

Personally, I choose the Scrivener 1894 Greek NT as the Greek NT reprentative text and the 1866 British and Foreign Bible Society for the Hebrew OT.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, I agree. Except that a true KJVO would tell you that the AD1611 AV English can be used to correct the Greek and Hebrew (or so I have read).

That defies logic.

Personally, I choose the Scrivener 1894 Greek NT as the Greek NT reprentative text and the 1866 British and Foreign Bible Society for the Hebrew OT.

HankD

is there hebrew text based upon BHS or something else?

IF KJVO hold to their version correcting greek/hebrew texts, then the KJV is Apostolic inspired!

 

[HankD]

is there hebrew text based upon BHS or something else?

IF KJVO hold to their version correcting greek/hebrew texts, then the KJV is Apostolic inspired!

First question above : I'm not sure what you are asking.

The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) is the CT of the OT.

The one I have from college is Kittle's version.

The "TR" of the OT is the 1866 British and Foreign Bible Society volume I mentioned previously.

The Hebrews were much more meticulous with the text, so really there is not a lot of question and variation among the Hebrew mms or the resultant collaborations of the complete text.

Second comment: yes you are correct, the AD1611 First Edition would have to be the inspired text in order to correct the Greek and Hebrew.
That is the only conclusion which can be drawn from a doctrine like that. Although I have seen some KJVO try to deny that statement by Peter Ruckman.

A few years ago on the BB we had a long debate about Ruckman and his teaching and many of us quoted his words from his books.
(These can be found in the archives if you are interested.)

As a result many backed off from his teaching (yet some remained KJVO) because of these two dogma attributed to him: 1) Secondary Inspiration of the English words of the KJV in which the translators were guided by the Holy Spirit in the translation and 2) Advanced Revelation in which the English text revealed doctrine not hitherto found in the Greek text alone.

HankD

 

[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.

KJV Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself ?



.

 

[Logos1560]

KJV Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself ?

You demonstrate that you are the one that needs to learn some accurate information about KJV editions.

The information that you cited has been proven to be inaccurate. You are posting incorrect information about KJV editions.

 

[Yeshua1]

First question above : I'm not sure what you are asking.

The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) is the CT of the OT.

The one I have from college is Kittle's version.

The "TR" of the OT is the 1866 British and Foreign Bible Society volume I mentioned previously.

The Hebrews were much more meticulous with the text, so really there is not a lot of question and variation among the Hebrew mms or the resultant collaborations of the complete text.

Second comment: yes you are correct, the AD1611 First Edition would have to be the inspired text in order to correct the Greek and Hebrew.
That is the only conclusion which can be drawn from a doctrine like that. Although I have seen some KJVO try to deny that statement by Peter Ruckman.

A few years ago on the BB we had a long debate about Ruckman and his teaching and many of us quoted his words from his books.
(These can be found in the archives if you are interested.)

As a result many backed off from his teaching (yet some remained KJVO) because of these two dogma attributed to him: 1) Secondary Inspiration of the English words of the KJV in which the translators were guided by the Holy Spirit in the translation and 2) Advanced Revelation in which the English text revealed doctrine not hitherto found in the Greek text alone.

HankD

it seems that the KJVO position does NOT have a closed canon then, as it seems to have open inspiration/ongoing revelation..

Any wonder why the proninent version among Charasmatics is the KJV?

Both hold to ongong moves of God per revelation?

 

[Yeshua1]

You demonstrate that you are the one that needs to learn some accurate information about KJV editions.

The information that you cited has been proven to be inaccurate. You are posting incorrect information about KJV editions.

Aren't there some known defects in the greek text used as basis for the KJV, so they would have translated into their version some minor mistakes/additions?

 

[HankD]

it seems that the KJVO position does NOT have a closed canon then, as it seems to have open inspiration/ongoing revelation..

Any wonder why the proninent version among Charasmatics is the KJV?

Both hold to ongong moves of God per revelation?

One of the greatest weaknessess of KJVOism is its history of the AV coming out of the Church of England.

The Apocrypha being an ongoing embarrassement.

Many point to the CoE 39 Articles of Religion as denying the doctrine of the canonicity of the Apocrypha but I believe there were only 7 articles when Henry the 8th established the CoE as distinct from Rome with true apostolic succession from Jesus Christ and the 12 Apostles.

Distinct but not neccessarily separate i.e. The Anglo-Catholic sector.

Any church which claims apostolic succession almost always claims authority equal to that of Christ and the apostles and therefore in such cases there is always extra-biblical home grown dogma competeting with the Scripture.

Granted the modern 39 Articles try to deny the doctrines of the canonicity of the Apocrypha, baptismal regeneration, a sacerdotal priesthood and the Real Presence in the Eucharist many even in high places seem to hold fast to these romish doctrine even calling the worship service a "mass".

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

One of the greatest weaknessess of KJVOism is its history of the AV coming out of the Church of England.

The Apocrypha being an ongoing embarrassement.

Many point to the CoE 39 Articles of Religion as denying the doctrine of the canonicity of the Apocrypha but I believe there were only 7 articles when Henry the 8th established the CoE as distinct from Rome with true apostolic succession from Jesus Christ and the 12 Apostles.

Distinct but not neccessarily separate i.e. The Anglo-Catholic sector.

Any church which claims apostolic succession almost always claims authority equal to that of Christ and the apostles and therefore in such cases there is always extra-biblical home grown dogma competeting with the Scripture.

Granted the modern 39 Articles try to deny the doctrines of the canonicity of the Apocrypha, baptismal regeneration, a sacerdotal priesthood and the Real Presence in the Eucharist many even in high places seem to hold fast to these romish doctrine even calling the worship service a "mass".

HankD

being from the church of england team, that is why we got baptised and not immersed in their translation?

 

[HankD]

being from the church of england team, that is why we got baptised and not immersed in their translation?

Translate please.

Thanks
HankD