The Version and Translation made in 1611 is the right one. There is no dispute between the 1611 and 1769 Editions on text or translation, since they both agree. Therefore it is entirely proper to stand for the "1611" Version.

Things like changing the 1611 "he" at Ruth 3:15 to the 1611 "she", or the 1611 "seek good" at Psalm 69:32 to the 1629 "seek God", or having the 1629 "Amen" at the end of Ephesians all never constitute either an underlying text or translation change. There are no actual changes to Scripture, or actual changes in the version-text and/or the translation of the King James Bible from 1611 to the Pure Cambridge Edition. All we can witness is the purification in correcting typographical errors, standardisation of the language and other regularisation. There are unauthorised editions which do corrupt the King James Bible, but they do not form part of the traditional lineage, such as, Webster, 1850s American Revision, Scrivener and Norton. These editions are not commonly used, and are generally considered abnormal.

Scrivener's relatively recent flawed Greek text is of no consequence.

But you're the guy who say throughly and thoroughly are different words, and yet refuses to show wherein they differ because you are a liar who knows they do not differ but claims they do so he can make himself pope of the KJV and lord his gnostic claims over everyone's KJV. And you say veil and vail are different words and divers and diverse are different words. Well, suppose I want to get looney along with you and claim sope and soap are different words? You're the guy that says if my KJV says thoroughly rather than throughly then I'm a bible corrupter. And you are saying the 1611 and 1769 editions agree exactly? What about the innumerable spelling differences? And what about actual differences? You admit that the 1611 didn't have amen at the end of Ephesians. Now, when that amen was added, that was a change of the underlying text, since the text they followed in 1611 didn't have it (hence Scrivener's reconstruction lacks it) but when they edited the KJV using Stephanus 1550 (which has it) they added it in.

You're one of those geniuses that blows a gasket over throughly vs thoroughly, and you're telling me that houghed vs hocked doesn't bother you? And you don't in your insanity view musick and music or ancle and ankle as separate words? If this was your true position, I WOULD REJOICE, but since you are lying, I lament that you think you can wiggle out from under the crushing weight of the truth. That truth being that you are the bible corrupter because you claim that unless my KJV says throughly rather than thoroughly and divers rather than diverse that it is not pure.

But who gets to authorize changes? Who gave the pure Cambridge bible correctors their authority? Any of these others can be viewed as equally authoritative! It all depends on your personal view. It is subjective, which is why you are wrong in claiming that you have some special gnostic insight and that anyone whose KJV doesn't contain the exact archaic spellings that you dictate is a corrupter.

It is a reconstruction of the text followed in the 1611. They didn't include amen at the end of Ephesians. Why? They chose to leave it out as did the Geneva and Bishops' Bibles. Why would all three of these old English Bibles leave it out? Because the text they were based on didn't have it. Scrivener's text that you make as a drop in a bucket or the spittle on one of your tongue spots is important in understanding the 1611 translation process. But we don't use the 1611! We use the 1769, and that's the point. You use a 1900 KJV, not even the 1769, and yet you are claiming to use the 1611.

From Biblecorrector's website:
But the 1611 itself says "Gaba" doesn't it? So then, if any edition says Geba rather than Gaba, it is not by preserving what the 1611 says, but by going back again to the Hebrew and re-transliterating! Who gave your 1900 bible correctors the authority to do that?

Take a look at Neh 7:30. Name spellings are not really important.

Sophronismos,
I am asking you kindly to refrain from your personal attacks on Matthew Verschuur. If you do not agree with his position, back up your argument with Scripture and wisdom. Why do you stoop to name-calling another brother and accusing him of being a deliberate liar. Who has given you that authority? Your viciousness and personal attack speaks badly of your character. Or does it expose the truth?

Considering some thinly vieled words you'd used in this forum, I'd say it's time you eat some sope (oops, I mean soap). :D

Well, not as far as meaning is not changed, but the issue at stake is the very jots and tittles of the Scripture. While "Geba" or "Gaba" obviously are the same place, no one is going to have a different doctrine if they believed "Gaba" in 1611 or 1769. However, if we say that these things do not matter, then other things more important can be excused, and eventually (in the extreme) we would accept "Yahweh" over "Jehovah".

Mat 5:17-20
(17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
(18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(20) For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


Well, the jot (Greek, iota) and tittle (keraia) refer to Hebrew language usage of letters and vowels, respectively (in fact, the Greek "iota" is of Hebrew origin). Change one of them, and you change the the OT context.

It's rather interesting that you bring "Yahweh" into this context. There's a long history spanning many centuries as to how "Yahweh" became "Jehovah." It is exactly this reason that name spellings aren't important, although not directly related as to the extent of the change in the name of God.

Originally, the Hebrew language didn't have "tittles," i.e., no vowels; the Hebrew language was a consonantal language. Vowels were spoken, but not written. The tittles were added long after the time of Christ, not before--invented by the Massoretic scribes about the latter half of the first millennium A.D. to augment the Hebrew language with a system of vowels.

This means the reference to the "jot" and "tittle" is to the "law and prophets" contained in the OT, not the written OT itself. In the light of the ref's immediate context, this makes perfect sense.

Do you understand the import of what I'm saying here? It wipes out your basic premise regarding the underlying reason (or rationale) for "protecting" the KJV from "textual corruption." Instead,the direct application of this verse is to the fulfillment of prophecy, and that's the proper exegesis of the passages, even though verse 18 can be mechanically and physically applied to the Levites' upkeep of the OT during those days.

This would have the same analogy as the plate and cup being clean on the outside, but inwardly it is full of extortion, excess, ravening, and wickedness (Matt 23:25-26, Luke 11:39). Outside: textual purity. Inside: santification through the word.

Therefore, the issue at stake is not textual preservation. Although the Levites first were given the oracles of God for its upkeep, it's God's prerogative to preserve it because He lives forever.

MDOC, you have some skewed information. There is a lot of proof that the OT texts had vowels - John Gill has an excellent dissertation on this. As far as Yahweh goes, that was never God's name - that was a name that higher critics took and applied to the Lord within the last couple of hundred years. If you cared you could do a search for that name on these boards, and find links to articles on the origin of this name.

Thank you, I'll consider that later.

I'm aware that Yahweh isn't actually his name; it was never revealed. The higher critics you mentioned didn't have anything to do with what happened a millenium ago.

What wasn't revealed? His name? Jehovah is revealed as His primary name in the OT - translated as LORD in the KJV. This is consistent with other Bible names with the same beginning of their names. Ie. we have Jehoiakim, Jehoida, Jehoshaphat, etc. Nowhere do we see translators translating these names as: Yahoiakim, Yahoida, Yahoshaphat.

What are you referring to?

Wow -- that's a lot of misinformation. I'll be nice and say you are misinformed.

Yahweh is a corruption of God's name Jehovah and is an excellent example of what happens when we let Satan define the parameters of the study of the Biblical text and its history. You have it totally backwards -- it is because we can trust in the jots and tittles being preserved (the very vowel points) that we know the KJV translators had it right with Jehovah, and that God is not named after a pagan god of storms.

Wow -- you really have to ignore what is written to make your points! Christ specifically referred to markings that didn't even amount to complete letters, let alone words, to state the truth of fulfillment. Of course the jots and tittles were a reference to the written Law -- that's what jots and tittles are! You make the whole tenet being taught by Christ of none effect!

Your approach to Scripture reminds me of those who deny the literal six days of creation, and yet don't deny that God instituted the Sabbath.

Exodus 20:10-11 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

When someone denies the literal six days of creation, they deny one of the foundational aspects of the Sabbath for Israel (not us, mind you). You are doing the same thing -- you are denying the truth of the "jots and tittles" and therefor make any teaching based on that foundation void.

I think its a bit too far to say that a huge corruption like Yahweh will come out of a laxity with respect to the name Geba. That God's name is Jehovah is guarded by the name of Jesus himself. Jesus = Jeshua = Jehohua = Jehoshuah = Jehovah + sh after the o causing the v to be pronounced as a u, Jeho+sh+vah = Jehoshuah = Jehoshua = Jeshua = Jesus. Can you do anything similar with Geba? No, because it isn't very important at all, but the name Jehovah is.

Although I beleive the literal jots and tittles are preserved I can see his point partially, if modified in the following way. The jots and tittles passing in that passage does not refer to them ceasing to be written, but ceasing to be in effect. Jesus said that the jots and tittles of the Law could not pass away until he fulfilled all the Law. After that Jesus fulfilled the Law, the Law passed away in the sense of no longer being in effect, being that the Law was replaced by the New Testament. The written jots and tittles will never pass away from being written, but they already have passed away from being in effect. He nailed the Law to the cross, thus making it no longer rule over us.

I believe in the Law, but that it is fulfilled by Christ in the believer. Therefore, I believe that the TEN COMMANDMENTS still apply today. If the Law has really passed away, the Ten Commandments would no longer apply. Take the fourth commandment, for example, while we do not literally observe the Sabbath, we do esteem every day to the Lord, and we do set aside the first day of the week for the Lord, worship and Christian fellowship.

I also believe that just because a prophecy or statement of the Law has been fulfilled, it does not mean that those words should actually pass away. This is because the Word is eternal and everlasting. "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." (Luke 21:33).

I agree that the "Gaba"/"Geba" issue is not anything like the "Yahweh" corruption. The "Geba" issue is important because God's works are perfect, which would include His ability to manifest knowedge of the exact spelling of His words in the English Bible.

That was not my intent. I was addressing the laxity of his treatment of the jots and tittles. The corruption of Jehovah into Yahweh is a direct result of believing that the "jots and tittles" are not literally preserved.

I have to chuckle. Any time you go from one language to another, verbal exactness is impossible. So the King James does not contain verbal exactness with the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. That is a no brainer. However, the Holy Spirit wrote the whole Bible and can quote the content of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek accurately into any language under the sun. Verbal exactness is not necessary to the Holy Spirit. That is why the Septuagent, the Geneva Bible, the King James Bible and even the Bibles based on the critical text are God's word and man is without excuse. In one language it might say Dottie worked from morning to evening. In another language it might say Dottie worked all day. As long as the translation is true, we have the word of God. It may not have verbal exactness, but if the translation is true to the original, you have inerrancy.
Now lets get on with following Jesus and carrying our crosses. Don't let the devil keep you in this never ending loop. Sure I prefer the King James for several valid reasons, but I make no issue with a saint that prefers one of the modern versions. If they get saved from the NIV, who am I to tell God He cannot do that. The masses today don't comprehend the English of the King James. I love it, but not everyone is me. So God reaches them where they are. Trust me, there are more worthy heresies that have crept into the church that need to be exposed, while you guys wrangle about Bible versions.

Do you know what a Straw Man argument is?

Funny how noone else has problems translating exact words from one language to another (a novel, the President's speach, a news article, etc.), yet when it comes to Bible translation, the translators are clueless or inadequate.

God said He would preserve His words - and you don't believe Him. Sad.

In other words, we are not bound to keep every jot and tittle of the Law but the spirit of the law. That's what I think he's saying when he says that the jots and tittles will not pass till all is fulfilled. Until Jesus fulfilled the Law and died on the cross, the Jews had to keep the law to the letter. He's not talking about the written jots and tittles being erased, but about how the Law is observed. Of course the written jots and tittles will endure forever even though we don't keep the Law to the letter, because "the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." (1 Pet 1:25)

Those based on the critical text remove words important to the sense.

Mat 1:25 "and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

Is not equivalent to

Matthew 1:25 "and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

The removal of the word firstborn is a major problem. Sure the basic idea is there, but the removal of the word firstborn is an intentional removal to make the Roman Catholic superstition of perpetual virginity more widely accepted. It is an intentional corruption of God's word.

Again, the removal of Acts 8:37 in the critical text is an intentional corruption to make the pernicious Roman Catholic superstition of infant baptism more widely accepted.

Again, the removal of 1 John 5:7 is an intentional corruption to allow the Catholics to say that the Bible doesn't teach the Trinity but that they invented it and if you beleive in it you should join their religion.

Again, in Matthew 5:22 taking out the phrase "without a cause" is an intentional corruption to make it seem as though Christians cannot avoid sin (i.e. total depravity, which is part of Catholicism and Calvinism both) and to purposefully create a contradiction between 1 Cor 10:13 that God will not allow you to be tempted above what you are able.

etc. etc.

Sure, however, with respect to names of places, it would be really hard to get the pronunciations exactly right, and no translation consistently does. The KJV, of course, spells the same names differently in the Old Testament based on the Hebrew and the New Testament based on the Greek, so we get Korah and Core and Elijah and Elias, Haran and Charan, etc.

But there is a huge difference between acknowledging that the pronunciation of regular names is no big deal, and saying that every translation is equally pure. Translations based on the critical text are translations based on a text specifically tailored to making Roman Catholic superstition seem acceptable when it is not. The critical text is the path back to Rome and to the one world church of antichrist, under the pope, worshiping Mary.

You definitely like to obfuscate. Plain English please. The King James when it was issued was not popular and was criticized for over fifty years before it got accepted. Nobody was willing to give up their Geneva Bible at first. Then the KJV took Geneva's place and now people are saying the same thing about the KJV and criticizing every other version under the sun. The only critical thing I keep in mind is that about 4500 manuscripts make up the Byzantine Text of manuscripts and the KJV was based on a few of those available to Erasmus and his text became the Received Text. However when you compare the KJV to the Byzantine or Majority Text, you find very few variants. The only Bibles based on the Received Erasmus Text are the King James Version, the New King James Version, and Jay Green's Literal Translation Version. No other version is based on the Majority Text. All other versions are based on the Alexandrian Text of manuscripts that have substantial variants between them. The TNIV in John five says that Jesus learned that the man at the pool of Bethesda was infirm for 38 years. Even the NASV says knew instead of learned. So while I know that God reaches people even through the NIV, I simply don't trust it for myself. However, I have to deal with that version because it is the most popular version out there. I wish there was a modern English translation based on the Majority Text. There are none. So when I hit the streets I give out NKJV gospels of John in English but only have the option of giving out NIV gospels of John in Spanish. So I trust in the Lord. Only by the Holy Spirit can a person repent, convert to Jesus and be saved, and God overcomes a lot of stuff like Bible versions to get the job done.

There is the Reina-Valera - and you can get Gospels of John in that.

texusreceptusonly said,
The spirit of the Law argument seems like it is a word play to provide an excuse not to obey the jots and tittles. I am saying we should obey and keep the jots and tittles of the Law spiritually. For example, if it is a law to keep the Sabbath, then spiritually we do keep every day as a holy day unto the Lord, etc. Various things of the Law are typological to Christ, and are kept spiritually by us who are of Christ. Moreover, there are prophecies from the Old Testament which are yet to be fulfilled. Therefore, there is no excuse concerning standing for the very jots and tittles of the Law.

pshda said,

This is not historically accurate.

1. The King James Bible took only one generation to fully replace the Geneva Version.

2. Only a handful of extremists criticised the King James Bible. I am sure that you could not name more than six people that criticised the King James Bible from 1611 to 1660.

3. And that "nobody" was willing to give up the Geneva Version is perhaps bordering on complete deception. I could easily name six people who promoted the King James Bible from 1611 to 1620. When the King James Bible appeared, it was quickly taken up by many Anglican Bishops, and even notable Puritans began to use it.

I think that you are believing the WRONG history of the King James Bible, the one promoted by the quasi-KJB scholars like Daniell and Norton, and by the anti-KJBO scholars like Norris and Joyner.

There is the Reina-Valera - and you can get Gospels of John in that.

Thanks Jerry but what I don't like about most of the Spanish translations is that in John 1 instead of saying In the beginning was the word, they say, In the beginning was the verb. I find versions that say in the beginning was la palabra, the word. I just have a hard time finding an outlet that ships gospels of John with the word instead of verb.

As Matthew pointed out, your facts are totally incorrect. Try reading King James, His Bible, and Its Translators for some actual historical data. (Not that I think it would help -- it has been said this is essentially a heart issue. If you're dead-set against the KJV, all the facts in the world won't change that.)

Also, the Geneva Bible did not dominate the scene for nearly 400 years, so your analogy is strained at best.

I am not trying to be insulting, but you sound like someone who read one essay and thinks he understands everything. Your terminology is so confused that it is difficult to respond. The KJV is not translated from the Majority text (and neither are the others you listed). The Majority Text is a modern invention and is a text nobody used until the 20th century. It is not synonymous with the Received Text.

While this statement is literally true, the "spirit" (heh heh) in which you offer it is false. One can not use the Holy Spirit as an excuse to treat the Bible with such a cavalier attitude, as we are commanded to seek out the Book of the Lord and read and study and rightly divide it. The Bible is profitable for doctrine and reproof -- those are attributes of Scripture, not the Holy Spirit.

Caring about the Bible -- and caring for the very words in it -- evinces love for Jesus Christ. You can't brush it aside with "well the Holy Spirit will take care of everything."

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.