Word differences: 1611 vs. newer KJVs

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by HankD:
BTW the infamous KJV "wicked Bible" of 1632 had "thou shalt commit adultery".

HankD

o that's easy.

1. thou shalt NOT commit adultery--that was the prohibition.

2. thou shalt commit adultery--that was the prophecy.

see no contradiction, ta-da!

hmm? any idiot can stoop to KJBOist duplicity. even *i* cld!

ouch ouch, just kicked myself!

 

[HankD]

o that's easy.

Groan...

HankD

 

[Chet]

Ransom said

You gotta laugh

I have to agree. I think this is one of the most ridicules of all from the KJVOnlyites. What a thread.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by 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.

.

.

.

.
.

.

.

.

Where did you get the 'all' from?

 

[timothy 1769]

Was likely" a correcton? It sounds like you don't know for certain.

That's right.

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.

By all means list them. But comparing it with a first edition 1611 is of little use since one would expect it to contain some printing errors.

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?

How do you know Jesus never sinned? Faith. I believe God's promises of preservation. I don't have to be able to understand it or prove it for it to be true. Certainly you know what I'm talking about. We all believe in personal repsonsibility and the foreknowledge of God. We all believe that God is transcendent yet immanent. We all believe the universe was created out of nothing. NONE of these make the LEAST BIT of sense. WE'RE ALL JUST TOO STUPID AND LIMITED TO UNDERSTAND IT ALL. Even with our PhD's and modern theories of this that and the other.

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?

Changes of substance not related to printing errors? No basis whatsoever.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Chet:
Ransom said </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You gotta laugh

I have to agree. I think this is one of the most ridicules of all from the KJVOnlyites. What a thread. </font>[/QUOTE]The mocking, disdain and ridicule aimed at KJVO proponents is part of what initially led me to seriously consider their position.

Matthew 5
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
The mocking, disdain and ridicule aimed at KJVO proponents is part of what initially led me to seriously consider their position.

Matthew 5
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

But don't forget 1 Peter 2:20 which is more applicable here.

1 Peter 2:20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.

The KJVOs are not being "mocked, disdained, and ridiculed" because of their godliness. They are treated such because of their repeated refusal to submit themselves to biblical doctrine. In this matter, they have no credit for enduring harsh treatment because they brought it on themselves.

However, back to the point: You keep talking about the difference between a translation and a printing. You keep refusing to answer my question about the differences between them. You say that the 1611 translation was perfect, but the printing was not. How do you know the translation apart from the printing, and how do you know which is in error?? Please do not keep ignoring this question. If you do not know, or haven't thought this far, just say so. But either way, give us an answer.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
What is the difference between that 1611 translation and its printed editions and how do you tell the difference?

Looking at the record, I think one can eliminate a lot, if not all, of the discrepancies. Likely editions printed while the translators lived, especially the second, third, and fourth printings, would have corrected most if not all of the printing errors. Comparing a late printing 1769 with a first printing 1611 unfairly exaggerates the number of apparent changes.

Answering your question would either require the translation autographs or omniscience, both of which I lack.

You assert one is perfect and the other is not. By what standard do you know which is which? And how do you know which is perfect?

I don't. Right now, out the entire Bible, we're dealing with 135 discrepancies, a number unfairly inflated by looking at a first edition of the 1611 translation. Many, if not most, if not all, of these were likely fixed in a later printing.

One thing catches my attention: These variations in the printings of the KJV seem random and of little import, while the changes in the modern versions seem to specifically target things of substance - Christ, fasting, repentance, hell, etc.

There are some diffculties with my position, but it's nothing compared with what you guys have to deal with - thousands of missing/added words, even to the extent of an entire chapter! Where was God while his Holy Word was being shamelessly perverted? Where was God while his Bible believing churches were duped for centuries with corrupt scriptures passing themselves off as the Word of God? Even your 'restored' scriptures manage somehow to introduce contradictions not present in the 'corrupted' KJV/TR.

 

[timothy 1769]

The KJVOs are not being "mocked, disdained, and ridiculed" because of their godliness. They are treated such because of their repeated refusal to submit themselves to biblical doctrine. In this matter, they have no credit for enduring harsh treatment because they brought it on themselves.

So we're just getting what we deserve, and you condone it?

However, back to the point: You keep talking about the difference between a translation and a printing. You keep refusing to answer my question about the differences between them.

Pastor Larry, you don't know me, you don't know my schedule, you don't know my priorities. You are exemplifiying the kind of unchristlike behavior that reigns in this cursed forum.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Answering your question would either require the translation autographs or omniscience, both of which I lack.

But you are convinced that the KJV is perfect, in spite of teh fact that you have no evidence whatsoever to prove it. In fact, all of the actual evidence shows many errors, and these cannot all be attributed to printer's errors, no matter how convenient that may appear.

These variations in the printings of the KJV seem random and of little import, while the changes in the modern versions seem to specifically target things of substance - Christ, fasting, repentance, hell, etc.

I have yet to see any change in the MV that affects anything of substance. This argument has been made before but so far every attempt has fallen short. Perhaps you have some new info you could share with us.

Yet even callign them "changes" belies your position. They are changes only if you accept your position. I don't think they are changes to Scripture. I think they are what Scripture originally said before the KJV and the TR introduced unfortunate changes.

Where was God while his Holy Word was being shamelessly perverted?

I guess you would have to show this shameless perversion. I have never seen it.

Where was God while his Bible believing churches were duped for centuries with corrupt scriptures passing themselves off as the Word of God?

Corruption is too strong a term. There are honest differences here and this light approach does not do justice to them. The differences exist, even in the majority text type and even in the TR. To assert blindly that one is perfect is to assume knowledge that no one has.

Even your 'restored' scriptures manage somehow to introduce contradictions not present in the 'corrupted' KJV/TR.

Again, this is something you would have to demonstrate for us. Previous attempts have fallen well short.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
You think wrong. I am well aware of what it means.

Apparently not. Based on your previous post you seem to think 'adorn' means to dress (otherwise why make the point about going naked?). That is an incorrect definition, 'adorn' means to decorate, not to dress.

(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.).

Strong's Concordance agrees with me, but I think you likely won't accept that. Perhaps you will accept that the vast majority of all English translations render it as some form of 'adorn'?

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.

Adorn means to decorate. Your interpretation contradicts the literal meaning of the scripture and has no biblical support at all that I'm aware of. The entire point of the passage is beauty, and by what means a godly woman may, and should, make herself beautiful.

!Peter 3
2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

Put aside what you think the passage means, and focus on what it actually says. There may be good reason for not taking it literally, but a simple literal understanding is the first step.

[ September 28, 2003, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: timothy 1769 ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
So we're just getting what we deserve, and you condone it?

I am not condoning mocking and ridicule. But there is very little fo that going on. But to answer your question, Yes, there are some who deserve it. In this category are those who have been shown the truth time after time and have consciously and willfully reject it.

On the other hand, there are some honest questioners, some people who are really trying to learn. Many of them have been duped by false teachers and have never been told the truth. These do not deserve such treatment.

In any case, there is a need for civility. This is not nearly as bad as it used to get in here.

Pastor Larry, you don't know me, you don't know my schedule, you don't know my priorities.

But I know that you found time to answer many other posts while "overlooking" mine. Yet my post when right to the heart of the argument, and you finally admitted you cannot sustain your point. You are only guessing on what you wish to be true. Priorities and schedules are interesting things when it comes to answering the tough questions.

However, having said that, I do understand priorities and time schedules. I understand that not all things can be given time. I frequently bow out of discussions simply because I have not the time to answer. Other times, I quit because I have no interest. But when someone directs a question to me, I do try to give an answer.

You are exemplifiying the kind of unchristlike behavior that reigns in this cursed forum.

Because I asked you to give an reason for the position you took?? I wish some more people would be that "unChristlike." We might actually learn something. My point is that people ought not to be given free passes. The fact that someone can voice an opinion does not mean that opinion should be taken seriously. They need to defend it and give reasons why. Those reasons tell us how seriously an opinion should be taken.

 

[Ransom]

timothy 1769 said:

Where did you get the 'all' from?

Find me a 1611 edition of the KJV that says "of the Damascenes" in 2 Cor. 11:39.

If you can't, we'll assume *all* of them have this (heh heh) "printer's error."

 

[Ransom]

timothy 1769 said:

One thing catches my attention: These variations in the printings of the KJV seem random and of little import,

Of little import - you mean such as the eternality of the Son and his mediatorship in Jude 25?

Or the translators' failure to recognize the Granville Sharp construction (not their fault) in 2 Pet. 1:1 and Titus 2:13, thus giving ground to the Arian Jehovah's Witnesses by denying the deity of Christ?

Or the ambiguous translation of Phil 2:6 which, instead of saying Christ's equality with the Father was something he had but did not hesitate to lay aside, suggests that it was something he did not have but attained through "robbery" (though he thought it not robbery)?

Or Luke 1:35, which suggests that the unborn Christ was not a human person, but a "thing"?

There. That's just four Christological difficulties with the KJV - some of which are serious deficiencies when compared with a modern Bible translation, others which I have invented just to show that it isn't as hard as you would have us believe to "think like a KJV-onlyist" and find nits to pick in the KJV.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Ransom:
timothy 1769 said:

Where did you get the 'all' from?

Find me a 1611 edition of the KJV that says "of the Damascenes" in 2 Cor. 11:39.

If you can't, we'll assume *all* of them have this (heh heh) "printer's error."

You're the one making the claim, brother, so you should be the one to back it up.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[QB]
I have many times. REad their [David Cloud and D.A. Waite] attempts at the KJVO issue. That alone qualifies them as false teachers. In addition, I have pointed out numerous deliberate errors in Cloud's writing many times on this board. In addition, I have correspondence between Cloud and a fundamental pastor where Cloud viciously and deliberately misrepresents this man and refuses to correct and offer an apology. That is a total lack of integrity on his part.

[qb]

You tell them Pastor Larry! God bless you sir! No heathen, apostate, ignorant, demon-possessed KJVOer should be allowed to get away with refusing to correct and offer an apology! You are my best friend!

Love Lacy

PS. LOOKEY AT MY BRACKETS!

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Ransom:
timothy 1769 said:

One thing catches my attention: These variations in the printings of the KJV seem random and of little import,

Of little import - you mean such as the eternality of the Son and his mediatorship in Jude 25?

Or the translators' failure to recognize the Granville Sharp construction (not their fault) in 2 Pet. 1:1 and Titus 2:13, thus giving ground to the Arian Jehovah's Witnesses by denying the deity of Christ?

Or the ambiguous translation of Phil 2:6 which, instead of saying Christ's equality with the Father was something he had but did not hesitate to lay aside, suggests that it was something he did not have but attained through "robbery" (though he thought it not robbery)?

Or Luke 1:35, which suggests that the unborn Christ was not a human person, but a "thing"?

There. That's just four Christological difficulties with the KJV - some of which are serious deficiencies when compared with a modern Bible translation, others which I have invented just to show that it isn't as hard as you would have us believe to "think like a KJV-onlyist" and find nits to pick in the KJV.

These are variations among the various printings of the KJV?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Apparently not. Based on your previous post you seem to think 'adorn' means to dress (otherwise why make the point about going naked?). That is an incorrect definition, 'adorn' means to decorate, not to dress.

Because of the context. I fully understand what it means. I don't need strong's or an English dictionary to explain it. I have done the homework.

Strong's Concordance agrees with me, but I think you likely won't accept that. Perhaps you will accept that the vast majority of all English translations render it as some form of 'adorn'?

I have no problem with adorn. My only problem was with the way that you interpret it in context.

Your interpretation contradicts the literal meaning of the scripture and has no biblical support at all that I'm aware of. The entire point of the passage is beauty, and by what means a godly woman may, and should, make herself beautiful.

I fully understand. This is what I said at the beginning. For clarification, I have included a part of a message I preached on this several years ago. This is the second point of a Mother's Day message on the The Successful Woman from 1 Peter 3:1-6.

II. A Successful Woman’s Lifestyle will be Characterized by her Gentle and Quiet Spirit. (vv. 3-4).

A. The Successful woman will avoid the values and appeals of the world.
Your adornment must not be merely external-- braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;

Your adornment must not be merely external – Peter’s emphasis is on inward qualities, not outward. This sets up the contrast with the next verse. The adornment is not to be one of externals but rather one of internals, the hidden person of the heart (1 Tim 2:9-10).

Three similar constructions make up the negative picture that Peter paints.
• Braiding of hair
• Putting on of gold
• Putting on of a certain type clothing.

Peter addresses these three things as representative of the type of conduct and lifestyle that is wrong for a Christian woman. At first glance, we might be somewhat confused but I think understanding a few things can help us.

First, we must understand the culture in which Peter lived. First century Roman culture viewed these types of things such as lavishly braided hair and conspicuous jewelry as being sexually provocative, much today as we might associate with “women of the street”—prostitutes. We know the kinds of dress that we expect from them. Peter is making sure that Christian women are not perceived by their husbands as women who dress this way in the culture are perceived by their own.

Secondly, we need to understand that Peter is not expressly forbidding these things. His point seems rather to be that these things, while sending a message to the world, does not send a message to God. “The incorporation of all three in his appeal suggests that Peter’s interest is not so much in denouncing certain modes of dress for their own sake, as in making the more general point that outward adornment—of any kind—is not what counts in the sight of God” (Michaels).

However, Peter is not prohibiting all outward adornment; he is rather talking about the sense of values that must accompany it. These things are not forbidden but they should not be the source of beauty. They should be used as a reflection of the values of the heart.

In today’s culture, dress plays an important role. We should understand that Peter is not condemning dressing up or looking sharp. I believe that what Peter is condemning is dress and styles that call attention to the wrong aspects of a woman. It is interesting that woman who want to be appreciate for their brains and substantial contributions to society dress like they want to be noticed for their physical appearance. Too many women today think that their hope for marriage depends on how good they look and too many men are looking for the wrong things.

B. The Successful woman will have her values driven by the things that God values.

But let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

Here Peter makes clear his contrast: Hidden is contrast with external; Adornment is contrast with person. The issue is the difference between the outer and the inner. The contrast is between what the world values and what God values.

The hidden person of the heart – The idea is one of ethics, not metaphysics. The heart is what we are at our deepest level. It is where allegiances are formed and for the believer where the allegiance to Jesus Christ has it roots. “A person’s ‘heart’ is who that person is, at the deepest and most private level, and for Christian wives, according to Peter, it is the wellspring of their beauty” (Michaels).

The imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit – Because of the new birth, that which is imperishable is now natural to them.

Gentle and quiet spirit – speaks of the disposition. There is nothing distinctively feminine about this. It is applicable to men as well.

• Gentle – not insistent on one’s right, not pushy, selfishly assertive, demanding one’s own way.
• Quiet – just as it sounds, not a loud mouth, not a boisterous woman.

Precious in the sight of God – poluteleia – Where terms such as timio~ (1:19) and polutimo~ (1:7) focus on intrinsic worth, polutelh~ (here) focuses on market value. The idea of lavish or extravagant was often used to denounce the wealthy women of the day and their adornments. Peter uses it positively and uses it “to heighten his dominant contrast between human and divine values” (Michaels).
• Proverbs 31:30 Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised.

“What is from a human standpoint quiet and self-effacing is ‘in God’s sight’ wonderfully extravagant” (Michaels). Such a spirit is precious because it “is the result of quiet and continual trust in God to supply one’s needs, and God delights in being trusted” (Grudem).

 

[HankD]

Now this is quite a wonderful departure from the norm here in Bible Versions/translations, a discussion and exposition concerning the text of the Scripture has broken out.

HankD

 

[Chet]

timothy 1769 said

The mocking, disdain and ridicule aimed at KJVO proponents is part of what initially led me to seriously consider their position...

Well Timothy, I am sorry you feel that way. It seems to me that if you actually read the writings of Waite, Gipp, Ruckman, Cloud and Riplinger you would see just where the ridicule comes from. I have read nearly every thread in this KJV/MV of this Board for the last year and a half to two years. Not once have I read where a non-KJVO person ever questioned the salvation of a KJVOnler. Yet I have read this from your camp, and from some of those listed above, directed to those who believe the MV's. Of all the treads I have read, this one takes the cake for being absolutely mind boggling of how far you (your camp) will go with your position! That is what I meant by my statement. REading some of the arguments put forth here are sad to me. How far will one go to defend their position that is based on mere "faith" (as you said). [ I think you have a misunderstanding of biblical faith (Heb. 11:1)]

KJVO's are completely ignoring facts that should at least make one say, "let me re-think this..." KJVO's are ignoring the facts with double talk in this thread. What is interesting to me is that I was once a KJVOite. The very facts listed in this thread is what caused me to consider their [mv's] position. Which is the solid position I take based on the historical, biblical, obvious, logical, overwhelming evidence and a clearer understanding of what preservation means.

Pastor Larry, you don't know me, you don't know my schedule, you don't know my priorities.

Then don't post on this board. If you do not have the time to give the evidence or answer the questions then don't post anything at all. It takes just a much time to write what you do write as it does to actually answer the questions. It only makes it appear as if you don't have the real answers. Furthermore, Pastor Larry has done absolutely nothing unChristlike whatsoever. He simply desires for you to answer his questions and others posed on this thread.