Word differences: 1611 vs. newer KJVs

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
1 Peter 3


Submission to Husbands


Serving and Suffering for God's Glory
1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3Do not let your adornment be merely outward--arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel-- 4rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

What is the textual basis for adding "merely" above to the Word of God? I'm so confused by the contradiction it introduces!

1 Timothy 2
9in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing,

Should women wear gold or not? The only thing my mind of limited intelligence can come up with in that the NKJV translation must have been tainted by some evil force (shudder). Either feminism or that strange spooky symbol on the front cover.

Your confusion stems from your failure to realize that women should not go around naked ... Of course you realize that, but Peter and Paul's point is that women should not only be concerned with outward appearance but also with the heart. There is an absolute necessity for outward adorning. But women should not be only concerned about outward adorning. There is nothing wrong with women wearing gold. But study the first century context and you will see what the point is. What is being condemned is a style of dress that draws undue attention to their outward appearance and compromises or questions their godliness. Gold and hairstyles does not have to do this; it may if not used appropriately.

Today, we have a breed of people who focus on outward adorning to an unhealthy and unbiblical point. They insist that women wear no pants. That is an undue concern with outward adorning. We have even had people suggest dishonesty by saying that when you wear shorts, you should make them look like a dress so nobody really knows you are wearing shorts. These people need to drop this obsession with outward appearance since it is a direct violation of the Scripture. The rule of Scripture is modesty and appropriateness.

There is no confusion here.

[ September 25, 2003, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Ransom]

timothy 1769 said:

It's true, I'm pretty stupid, but I can still see how "of the Damascenes" could have accidentally been left out of the first printing.

So much for the vaunted doctrine of preservation.

 

[Ransom]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:

The 1611 translation itself was, and is, pure.

Also posted by timothy 1769:

It's true, I'm pretty stupid, but I can still see how "of the Damascenes" could have accidentally been left out of the first printing.

KJV-only doublespeak.

 

[timothy 1769]

Pastor Larry said:

Your confusion stems from your failure to realize that women should not go around naked ... Of course you realize that, but Peter and Paul's point is that women should not only be concerned with outward appearance but also with the heart. There is an absolute necessity for outward adorning.

I think perhaps you don't understand what 'adorn' means.

ADORN', v.t.

1. To deck or decorate; to make beautiful; to add to beauty by dress; to deck with external ornaments.

As you can see, Peter's command wasn't to avoid wearing clothing, but to not adorn oneself with it. So women shouldn't wear clothing in order to decorate themselves or make themselves beautiful, but can wear it for modesty or other reasons. Thus saith the Lord.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Originally posted by timothy 1769:

The 1611 translation itself was, and is, pure.

Also posted by timothy 1769:

It's true, I'm pretty stupid, but I can still see how "of the Damascenes" could have accidentally been left out of the first printing.

KJV-only doublespeak.

Ransom, please understand that a translation isn't a printing.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Ransom:
timothy 1769 said:

It's true, I'm pretty stupid, but I can still see how "of the Damascenes" could have accidentally been left out of the first printing.

So much for the vaunted doctrine of preservation.

Really? I don't see that unless you think preservation means it's impossible to print a Bible containing a typographical error.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

How many "changes of substance" does it take for something that is "pure" and "perfect" to be made "impure" and "imperfect?" More than 136? Or just one?

One. But you misunderstand my position, I think each change was likely a correction of an earlier printer's mistake, adding to the purity of the printed editions. The 1611 translation itself was, and is, pure. </font>[/QUOTE]"Was likely" a correcton? It sounds like you don't know for certain. I could just as easily assert that the changes "were likely" deliberate alterations to the original 1611 text -- especially those made by Blayney in 1769 over a century after the last of the KJV translators had died. How do you *know* that the 1611 translation "was, and is, pure" when we don't have the original KJV translator's notes or proofs to determine this?

Your response about the difference between the 1611 and 1769 KJV's raises other questions. Were the English speaking people without a "pure, preserved, perfect word of God" between 1611 and 1769? Did they use a "corrupt" Bible all those years until Blayney came along? On what basis and by what authority could Blayney introduce changes to "correct" the text of the KJV which had been used by God's people for over a hundred years?

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:

Ransom, please understand that a translation isn't a printing.

Your argument seems to be --

(1) God arranged for a perfect English translation to be made in 1611;
(2) God didn't consider it necessary to providentially preserve that perfect translation from printer's errors;
(3) Yet all those imperfectly printed copies were still considered the word of God and used by God for the edification of His people.

How does this differ significantly from the following position? --

(1) God arranged for a perfect Greek and Hebrew autograph to be made in ancient times;
(2) God didn't consider it necessary to providentially preserve that perfect autograph from copyist's errors;
(3) Yet all those imperfect manuscript copies were still considered the word of God and used by God for the edification of His people.

After all, just as a translation is not a printing, so an autograph is not a copy.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
I think perhaps you don't understand what 'adorn' means.

[You think wrong. I am well aware of what it means. (However, it would be more helpful for you to define the word that PEter used which was "kosmos." Defining English words is not all that beneficial.).

You missed the point of the passage ... that is my point. Making oneself beautiful or attractive is not the issue. It is a wrong focus on those things that is the issue. It is the making beautiful of the outside without proper concern for the inside. There is nothing wrong with clothing that is attractive or that makes one look nice. In fact, it is appropriate for a Christian to dress in light of the glory of hte God which he or she serves.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Ransom, please understand that a translation isn't a printing.

I have already asked you twice to defend this statement. Why do you refuse? Please tell us what the difference is, how you know one without the other, and how do you know which is right? Please do not stall on this.

 

[BrianT]

Maybe he means that "the KJV" is perfect (but doesn't really exist), and that all we have are corrupt printings of it.

 

[bryan1276]

All this tearing down of a Bible by Christians is really dumb. Concerning the text in the editions of the KJV... I can believe every single edition of the KJV and have no problems at all. For instance if a text says he had shekels and I believe that, it is no problem to see in a later edition that he had shekels of silver... I can believe both statements without having trouble reconciling. I know you guys says KJO has a double standard about that, but thats the long and the short of it... All editions have no textual duplicity--if it says he went to the city and it says she went to the city and the fact is they both went; I believe all three statements w/o a problem. This is NOT the case with the modern versions. I cant believe every word that they say altogether b/c they contradict. Some say one thing and others will say something else yet heretical teaching today says you can believe ALL the modern revisions together, but for some reason you arent suppose to believe editions of the KJV that have no problem textually reconciling. And apparently if you dont attack the KJV, you arent orthodox either in modern circles.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by bryan1276:
All this tearing down of a Bible by Christians is really dumb....

I know you guys says KJO has a double standard...

This is NOT the case with the modern versions. I cant believe every word that they say altogether b/c they contradict. Some say one thing and others will say something else yet heretical teaching today says you can believe ALL the modern revisions together,

I agree it is really dumb to tear down a Bible... so why don't you dispense with your double standard and stop it.

 

[kman]

Originally posted by bryan1276:
All editions have no textual duplicity--if it says he went to the city and it says she went to the city and the fact is they both went; I believe all three statements w/o a problem.

Are you saying the "printer errors" are inspired by God and thus inerrant?

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by bryan1276:
All this tearing down of a Bible by Christians is really dumb. Concerning the text in the editions of the KJV... I can believe every single edition of the KJV and have no problems at all. For instance if a text says he had shekels and I believe that, it is no problem to see in a later edition that he had shekels of silver... I can believe both statements without having trouble reconciling. I know you guys says KJO has a double standard about that, but thats the long and the short of it... All editions have no textual duplicity--if it says he went to the city and it says she went to the city and the fact is they both went; I believe all three statements w/o a problem. This is NOT the case with the modern versions. I cant believe every word that they say altogether b/c they contradict. Some say one thing and others will say something else yet heretical teaching today says you can believe ALL the modern revisions together, but for some reason you arent suppose to believe editions of the KJV that have no problem textually reconciling. And apparently if you dont attack the KJV, you arent orthodox either in modern circles.

I agree with you that tearing down the NIV or NASB, etc. by Christians is really dumb. I don't know about way back in modern times, but today there is no orthodoxy in attacking the KJV, only combatting the false doctrine of the KJVOs. And that's only because they insist on tearing down other people's Bibles first. If they'd follow Scripture and not try to shove their particular version down other believers' throats or impose it upon them, there'd be no trouble. Instead, they insist on being heretics (in the literal, original sense of the word).

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by bryan1276:

Concerning the text in the editions of the KJV... I can believe every single edition of the KJV and have no problems at all. For instance if a text says he had shekels and I believe that, it is no problem to see in a later edition that he had shekels of silver... I can believe both statements without having trouble reconciling. I know you guys says KJO has a double standard about that, but thats the long and the short of it... All editions have no textual duplicity--if it says he went to the city and it says she went to the city and the fact is they both went; I believe all three statements w/o a problem. This is NOT the case with the modern versions. I cant believe every word that they say altogether b/c they contradict. Some say one thing and others will say something else yet heretical teaching today says you can believe ALL the modern revisions together, but for some reason you arent suppose to believe editions of the KJV that have no problem textually reconciling.

Consider the following verse:

"For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, 1611 KJV).

"For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it *not* upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, today's KJV).

You'll note that one of these KJV's says she *did* pour it on the ground, and the other says that she did *not* pour it on the ground. How do you reconcile them? Can you believe both these KJV's even though they flat-out contradict each other? Which one is correct? And how do you *know* which one is correct? What is your "final authority" for deciding which of these two "final authorities" is the right one?

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by bryan1276:

Concerning the text in the editions of the KJV... I can believe every single edition of the KJV and have no problems at all. For instance if a text says he had shekels and I believe that, it is no problem to see in a later edition that he had shekels of silver... I can believe both statements without having trouble reconciling. I know you guys says KJO has a double standard about that, but thats the long and the short of it... All editions have no textual duplicity--if it says he went to the city and it says she went to the city and the fact is they both went; I believe all three statements w/o a problem. This is NOT the case with the modern versions. I cant believe every word that they say altogether b/c they contradict. Some say one thing and others will say something else yet heretical teaching today says you can believe ALL the modern revisions together, but for some reason you arent suppose to believe editions of the KJV that have no problem textually reconciling.

Consider the following verse:

"For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, 1611 KJV).

"For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it *not* upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, today's KJV).

You'll note that one of these KJV's says she *did* pour it on the ground, and the other says that she did *not* pour it on the ground. How do you reconcile them? Can you believe both these KJV's even though they flat-out contradict each other? Which one is correct? And how do you *know* which one is correct? What is your "final authority" for deciding which of these two "final authorities" is the right one? </font>[/QUOTE]Neither edition has any textual duplicity--if it says she poured it on the ground and if it says she poured it not on the ground then the fact is she both poured it on the ground and didn't; I believe both statements w/o a problem. This is NOT the case with the modern versions. I can't believe every word that they say altogether b/c they contradict. But pouring on the ground and not pouring on the ground is not a contradiction, because the KJV says both happened.

The preceding program may have contained ideas that were not necessarily those of the poster. The poster is therefore not responsible for the contents of the post, nor are any subsidiaries of the poster or their management. Transcripts of the post may be available through your local station.

 

[HankD]

Neither edition has any textual duplicity--if it says she poured it on the ground and if it says she poured it not on the ground then the fact is she both poured it on the ground and didn't; I believe both statements w/o a problem.

DOUBLE-SPEAK ALERT!!!

BTW the infamous KJV "wicked Bible" of 1632 had "thou shalt commit adultery".

HankD

[ September 27, 2003, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Ransom]

timothy 1769 said:

Ransom, please understand that a translation isn't a printing.

In other words, the translation is perfect, but all the copies that exist (i.e. printings) are flawed.

You gotta laugh.

.

.

.

.
.

.

.

.

 

[Ransom]

timothy 1769 said:

Really? I don't see that unless you think preservation means it's impossible to print a Bible containing a typographical error.

Entire words and phrases (i.e. God's thoughts) drop out of the text, and you don't see how it affects preservation?

You gotta laugh.

.

.

. .

. .

.

.