• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Per KJVO, Did we even have real word of God to us as a Bible before 1611?

Saved421

Member
God was purifining the Bible, though that dosen't mean there was no gospel in them

Do note, the Vulgate once had dominance and no one could read it.

Also, pre-1611, Many versions had errors
 

Conan

Well-Known Member
God was purifining the Bible, though that dosen't mean there was no gospel in them

Do note, the Vulgate once had dominance and no one could read it.

Also, pre-1611, Many versions had errors
So you are saying God is an old man that is weak and it took him a long time to get his word right and somehow after a million tries finally got it right when? In 1611? The 1611 KJV is different than todays KJV's!
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The 1611 KJV is different than todays KJV's!
Yes, there are over 2,000 differences between the 1611 edition of the KJV and a typical today's KJV edition.

Several KJV-only authors make some broad-sweeping assertions that they do not apply consistently and justly. Concerning the Open Bible edition of the KJV, Dave Reese claimed: "If words are changed, it is not the King James Version. It is another Bible" (The Book No One Can Read, p. 56). Concerning the New Scofield, Dave Reese asserted: “If words are changed, it is not the same text” (p. 53). Dave Reese asked: “If there is justification for changing some words, where do we stop?” (p. 56). Jim Ellis asked: "How could it be a King James Bible if it is different from the King James Bible?" (Only Two Bibles, p. 17). Attacking the idea that the New Scofield Reference Bible has the same basic text as the KJV, William Grady contended: "A lost man would laugh at the suggestion that a particular text could be promoted as the same text with even one alteration" (Final Authority, p. 311). Kelly Gallagher claimed: “Any true Christian would throw away a bible if ONE WORD was taken away or added to it” (The Perfect Bible, p. 58). David W. Norris asserted: “Bearing in mind that every single word carries with it the authority of the whole book and were one word missing the Bible would be incomplete and imperfect, we ought not to be surprised that subtracting of even a single word put in place by God or adding a word of our own incurs a penalty of eternal loss” (The Big Picture, pp. 260-261).

Al Lacy contended: “If ANY BOOK that is called a ‘Bible’ has even ONE error in it … it is NOT the Word of TRUTH” (Can I Trust, p. 99). Al Lacy claimed: “If it [a Bible translation] has even ONE error, it is NOT the Word of TRUTH! You cannot trust it” (Ibid.). Al Lacy asserted: “If we do not have a perfect translation, we do not HAVE the Scriptures” (p. 101). Al Lacy declared: “DIFFERENT WORDS CAUSE CONFUSION” (p. 106). Referring to the King James Bible Sam Gipp maintained that “it [the KJB] only needs one mistake to cease to be the perfect, inspired word of God” (Is Our English Bible, p. 73). Just before that statement, Sam Gipp had asserted: “If it [the KJB] could have one mistake, it could have two, it could have twenty, it could have one thousand” (Ibid.).

Raymond Blanton claimed: “If I cannot believe every word in the King James Version I cannot believe one word in it” (The Perilous Times, August, 1993, p. 13) and again he claimed: “If we cannot believe every word in it [the KJV], we cannot believe one word in it” (November, 1999, p. 5). Jack Hyles asserted: “Do you mean if there is just one word wrong in the Bible, you have to throw everything else away?’ That’s exactly what I mean” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 39). Charles Perkins wrote: "Personally I cannot find anything ‘Godly’ about changing even one word in the King James Bible" (Flaming Torch, April-June, 1998, p. 7). In 1980, John C. Phillips asserted: “There is no need to revise, update, correct, better explain, or change in any way, the present King James Bible” (King James Contender, Nov.-Dec., 1980, p. 2). Len Smith wrote: “Be careful if you go buy a King James Version. The publishers will deceitfully call some of them Authorized Versions without letting you know they’ve changed some of the words, some of the spelling, and some of the capitalization” (Age of Reason, D22, p. 9). Mickey Carter wrote: “Some Bible publishers will print what on the cover reads ‘King James Version,‘ yet without any warning anywhere make changes on the inside” (Things that are Different, p. 90). Mickey Carter declared: “It is a dirty trick to change the Bible without warning or without revealing the changes on the outside, but it is a deception that is happening” (p. 91). Concerning the Open Bible edition of the KJV, D. A. Waite wrote: “I came to some words that were spelled differently so I couldn’t make a true comparison” (Defending the KJB, p. 231). E. W. Whitten claimed: “If any variance or inconsistency can be found in the truth, or version, the entire article is tainted and no longer has any credibility” (Truth, p. 35).

David Norris contended that “even revising or changing it [the A.V.] in any way will have the same effect” as “debasing the currency,” and he added: “It is robbery” (Big Picture, p. 230). Terence McLean asserted: “If you would change one word (Easter), you are on the slippery slope to total infidelity toward God’s words” (History of Your Bible, p. 12). Ken Matto maintained “that tampering with just even one letter makes it an evil practice and places one under the judgment of God” (Modern Version, p. 465). In his commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Peter Ruckman wrote: “We will not alter ONE word in the text of the Authorized Version which we have on the table before us” (p. v). Bill Bradley asked: "Would you allow someone to take your King James Bible and change it in more than 130 places, and still call it a King James Bible?" (Mickey Carter, Elephant, p. 142). As a chapter heading, David Daniels claimed: “A few tiny changes make a big difference” (51 Reasons, p. 143). David Daniels asserted: “’Different words’ produce different meanings” (Answers, p. 142). David Daniels used this section heading: “Changed words means changed meanings” (p. 171). Roy Branson asserted: “The author does not believe anyone has ever improved upon the wording of the KJV in any instance, nor that it can be improved upon” (KJV 1611, p. 96).
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mickey Carter claimed: “Things that are different are not the same. Bibles that are different are not the same” (Things That Are Different, p. 77). Phil Stringer also asserted: “Things that are different are not the same” (Unbroken Bible, p. 210). M. H. Tabb wrote: “Things different are not the same” (Inspiration, p. 90). Jack McElroy wrote: “Like they say, things that are different can’t be the same” (Which Bible, p. 186). Craig Savige asserted: “The basic rule for consistency is: That which is different CANNOT be the same” (Why Faith Christians, p. 24). John C. Phillips acknowledged: “The word same means identical, not different or other” (King James Contender, May, 1980, p. 2). Michael Hollner declared: “Every Word of God means every single word, no exceptions” (King James Only, p. 173).

Peter Van Kleeck, Jr. wrote: “Change the words and you change the Bible” (Then He Poked, p. 32). Marty Braemer claimed: “Change the wording and you change the meaning” (This Little Light, p. 1). H. D. Williams wrote: “Change the words and the meaning changes” (Word-for-Word, p. 116). Steve Combs wrote: “To change the words is to change the meaning” (Practical Theology, p. 113). E. W. Whitten claimed: “If you change the Words, punctuation, tense, position, or anything, it is no longer Scripture” (Truth, p. 39). Charles Kriessman wrote: “If words are changed, meanings are changed” (Modern Bible, p. 93). Peter Van Kleeck, Jr. wrote: “In the case of the word of God, to change the words is to change the substance” (Then He Poked, p. 32). D. A. Waite wrote: “When words are different, the meaning, no matter how slightly, cannot possibly be the same” (Foes, p. 95). Jack McElroy wrote: “You can’t use different English words without changing the meaning in many passages” (Which Bible, p. 135). Al Lacy contended: “DIFFERENT WORDS CAUSE CONFUSION” (Can I Trust, p. 106). Jack Hyles asserted: “Two things that don’t agree cannot both be right” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 23). Jack Hyles claimed: “If two books do not contain the same words, one of them cannot contain the words of God” (p. 16). T. S. Luchon declared: “God wants His Words written as He gave the Words, and He wants no other Words!” (From the Mind of God to the Heart of Man, p. 40).

Ken Matto claimed: “We must never think that anything written in scripture can be deleted without consequence” (Modern Version Incursion, p. 330). Ken Matto declared: “God gave every word in the Bible for a purpose, and for someone to remove anything is to endanger the eternal souls of people” (p. 369). Ken Matto wrote: “If there is one thing we have learned, it is that every word in the Bible has significance” (p. 208). Ken Matto asserted: “Do not fall for the idea that words in the Bible are not important and that only concepts are” (p. 181). Thomas Corkish declared: “Any ‘dross’ or mixture’ added makes it an impure word, violating God’s sacred, settled standard of perfection” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 147). In his introduction to his book entitled God’s Chosen Edition of the KJB, Matthew Verschuur claimed: “Because the editions of the King James Bible differ in words, letters, spelling, punctuation and grammar, there can be only one which is pure, right and chosen.”

Emanuel Rodriguez declared: “In order for a Bible to be correct it must have every word of God accurately translated in the receptor language” (God’s Bible, p. 15). Charles Kriessman claimed: “Dynamic Equivalence is employed when words in the text are either added, subtracted, or changed in some way” (Modern Version, p. 78). In his criteria for translating, H. D. Williams wrote: “Under no circumstance should words be added, subtracted, or changed in other ways” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 230). M. H. Tabb asserted: “All Bible Correctors subtract from the words of God” (Inspiration, p. 208). KJV-only author Ken Matto asked: “How can anyone build their faith on what is omitted in the Bible?” (Modern Version, p. 190), but would he apply his own question to the places where the KJV omits words? Is nothing taken away or subtracted from the original-language texts in any of the following KJV renderings? Gary Miller asserted that KJV translators “made sure to clearly translate each and every word” (Why the KJB, p. 18). Michael Hollner claimed: “The A.V. of God’s Word holds nothing back, nor does it omit any of God’s Words” (King James Only, p. 5). Charles Keesee asserted: “If God inspired a word to be written down and your Bible does not contain it, then your Bible has an error” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 31).

Many KJV-only authors do not clearly, directly, and consistently apply their very own broad-sweeping assertions to all the actual verifiable facts concerning the many existing differences and changes in the many varying editions of the KJV including the varying Cambridge KJV editions. They tend to ignore or avoid the actual verifiable facts concerning the original 1611 edition and the over 2,000 changes that were made to it in later KJV editions. Why do they avoid the facts concerning the words changed in the 1611 edition, the words added to the 1611 edition, and the words omitted from the 1611 edition in the later KJV editions? They also ignore and avoid the verifiable facts concerning the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV and the over 400 changes made to it. KJV defender Laurence Vance wrote: “There are 750 differences between the 1769 Blayney edition of the Authorized Version and modern King James Bibles: 461 Old Testament and 189 New Testament” (Text of the KJB, p. 220).
 

Charlie24

Active Member
As long as man differs on Biblical doctrine, there will be new versions written to lean toward those preferences.

According to some sources there are currently 450 versions of the Bible in English alone.

It will keep growing as new movements seek to prove they have it right.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As long as man differs on Biblical doctrine, there will be new versions written to lean toward those preferences.
The KJV was and is used to teach varying and conflicting doctrines.

The Church of England makers of the KJV changed some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles thought to teach congregational church government to renderings more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government.
 

Charlie24

Active Member
The KJV was and is used to teach varying and conflicting doctrines.

The Church of England makers of the KJV changed some renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles thought to teach congregational church government to renderings more favorable to Church of England episcopal church government.

God placed His Word above His name. We can trust it, His Word is His promise.

Psalm 138:2

"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

I'm banking on the 1611 KJV, along with millions of others before me.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm banking on the 1611 KJV, along with millions of others before me.
Your human opinion and your non-scriptural claims for the KJV are not Scripture or God's Word.

Would you suggest that God did not magnify His word above all His name in the 1537 Matthew's Bible or in the 1560 Geneva Bible? How can you justly suggest that Psalm 138:2 only applies to the KJV?
 

Charlie24

Active Member
Your human opinion and your non-scriptural claims for the KJV are not Scripture or God's Word.

Would you suggest that God did not magnify His word above all His name in the 1537 Matthew's Bible or in the 1560 Geneva Bible? How can you justly suggest that Psalm 138:2 only applies to the KJV?

Wow, assumptions can lead to total misunderstanding.

I'm not suggesting anything for you, that's your call!

I'm banking on the 1611 KJV, by my own personal decision.

As I have said numerous times, I was raised on the 1611 KJV from a child.

I have memorized the key words and studied them in the Hebrew and Greek.

I'm lost when I go to another versions, I feel like I'm reading some strange thing.

If another version works for you, great, I'm happy for you!
 

Saved421

Member
So you are saying God is an old man that is weak and it took him a long time to get his word right and somehow after a million tries finally got it right when? In 1611? The 1611 KJV is different than todays KJV's!
He purified it seven times. Watch TruthisChrist channel.

The 1611 was done in the era before computers.
 

Saved421

Member
Mickey Carter claimed: “Things that are different are not the same. Bibles that are different are not the same” (Things That Are Different, p. 77). Phil Stringer also asserted: “Things that are different are not the same” (Unbroken Bible, p. 210). M. H. Tabb wrote: “Things different are not the same” (Inspiration, p. 90). Jack McElroy wrote: “Like they say, things that are different can’t be the same” (Which Bible, p. 186). Craig Savige asserted: “The basic rule for consistency is: That which is different CANNOT be the same” (Why Faith Christians, p. 24). John C. Phillips acknowledged: “The word same means identical, not different or other” (King James Contender, May, 1980, p. 2). Michael Hollner declared: “Every Word of God means every single word, no exceptions” (King James Only, p. 173).

Peter Van Kleeck, Jr. wrote: “Change the words and you change the Bible” (Then He Poked, p. 32). Marty Braemer claimed: “Change the wording and you change the meaning” (This Little Light, p. 1). H. D. Williams wrote: “Change the words and the meaning changes” (Word-for-Word, p. 116). Steve Combs wrote: “To change the words is to change the meaning” (Practical Theology, p. 113). E. W. Whitten claimed: “If you change the Words, punctuation, tense, position, or anything, it is no longer Scripture” (Truth, p. 39). Charles Kriessman wrote: “If words are changed, meanings are changed” (Modern Bible, p. 93). Peter Van Kleeck, Jr. wrote: “In the case of the word of God, to change the words is to change the substance” (Then He Poked, p. 32). D. A. Waite wrote: “When words are different, the meaning, no matter how slightly, cannot possibly be the same” (Foes, p. 95). Jack McElroy wrote: “You can’t use different English words without changing the meaning in many passages” (Which Bible, p. 135). Al Lacy contended: “DIFFERENT WORDS CAUSE CONFUSION” (Can I Trust, p. 106). Jack Hyles asserted: “Two things that don’t agree cannot both be right” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 23). Jack Hyles claimed: “If two books do not contain the same words, one of them cannot contain the words of God” (p. 16). T. S. Luchon declared: “God wants His Words written as He gave the Words, and He wants no other Words!” (From the Mind of God to the Heart of Man, p. 40).

Ken Matto claimed: “We must never think that anything written in scripture can be deleted without consequence” (Modern Version Incursion, p. 330). Ken Matto declared: “God gave every word in the Bible for a purpose, and for someone to remove anything is to endanger the eternal souls of people” (p. 369). Ken Matto wrote: “If there is one thing we have learned, it is that every word in the Bible has significance” (p. 208). Ken Matto asserted: “Do not fall for the idea that words in the Bible are not important and that only concepts are” (p. 181). Thomas Corkish declared: “Any ‘dross’ or mixture’ added makes it an impure word, violating God’s sacred, settled standard of perfection” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep, p. 147). In his introduction to his book entitled God’s Chosen Edition of the KJB, Matthew Verschuur claimed: “Because the editions of the King James Bible differ in words, letters, spelling, punctuation and grammar, there can be only one which is pure, right and chosen.”

Emanuel Rodriguez declared: “In order for a Bible to be correct it must have every word of God accurately translated in the receptor language” (God’s Bible, p. 15). Charles Kriessman claimed: “Dynamic Equivalence is employed when words in the text are either added, subtracted, or changed in some way” (Modern Version, p. 78). In his criteria for translating, H. D. Williams wrote: “Under no circumstance should words be added, subtracted, or changed in other ways” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 230). M. H. Tabb asserted: “All Bible Correctors subtract from the words of God” (Inspiration, p. 208). KJV-only author Ken Matto asked: “How can anyone build their faith on what is omitted in the Bible?” (Modern Version, p. 190), but would he apply his own question to the places where the KJV omits words? Is nothing taken away or subtracted from the original-language texts in any of the following KJV renderings? Gary Miller asserted that KJV translators “made sure to clearly translate each and every word” (Why the KJB, p. 18). Michael Hollner claimed: “The A.V. of God’s Word holds nothing back, nor does it omit any of God’s Words” (King James Only, p. 5). Charles Keesee asserted: “If God inspired a word to be written down and your Bible does not contain it, then your Bible has an error” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 31).

Many KJV-only authors do not clearly, directly, and consistently apply their very own broad-sweeping assertions to all the actual verifiable facts concerning the many existing differences and changes in the many varying editions of the KJV including the varying Cambridge KJV editions. They tend to ignore or avoid the actual verifiable facts concerning the original 1611 edition and the over 2,000 changes that were made to it in later KJV editions. Why do they avoid the facts concerning the words changed in the 1611 edition, the words added to the 1611 edition, and the words omitted from the 1611 edition in the later KJV editions? They also ignore and avoid the verifiable facts concerning the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV and the over 400 changes made to it. KJV defender Laurence Vance wrote: “There are 750 differences between the 1769 Blayney edition of the Authorized Version and modern King James Bibles: 461 Old Testament and 189 New Testament” (Text of the KJB, p. 220).
These changes are irrevalant as these were printer errors and language changes. They were not rewritting it or revising it as the RSV.

I don't think anyone holds on to the KJB1611 to be the only besides some.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Kindly please do not call the errors caused by printers to be considered errors. Those were not intended.
An error is still an error regardless of who supposedly introduced it whether printers, editors, or translators.

Translators' errors are often not intended since they translate according to how they understand the original-language words and sometimes they understand them incorrectly or else are influenced by their doctrinal bias. The Church of England makers of the KJV were sometimes influenced by their Church of England doctrinal bias for episcopal church government as they changed renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles that were favorable to congregational church government.
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
These changes are irrevalant as these were printer errors and language changes.
All the changes made to the 1611 edition of the KJV have not been soundly proven to be correction of printing errors and spelling updates.

You assume your opinion instead of proving it to be true.
 

Conan

Well-Known Member
Kindly please do not call the errors caused by printers to be considered errors. Those were not intended.
The King James Bible was made from the Bishops Bible, not perfect copies of the Original Hebrew and Greek , William Tyndale's Bibles, Matthew's Bible, Coverdale's Bibles, Geneva Bibles, Roman Catholic editions of the Original Languages, the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament and different editions of the Textus Receptus. Other unnamed editions also. Thank you for admitting God allowed printing errors in the Bible. He also allowed other errors as well. He even allowed an Image of the Pagan god Pan to be printed in the Gospel of Matthew. Wouldn't that also be a mistake?
 
Top