AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Versions (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   1611 vs 1769 (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1416)

Cody1611 07-02-2009 06:52 PM

1611 vs 1769
 
I read an article today by this guy named Rick Beckman trying to disprove the inspiration of the King James Bible by using the 1611 vs 1769 argument. Here is some of the article, tell me what you guys think.

-------

I have heard this enough in varying places that I wanted to post this just to help others not be duped by the statement: “The only changes made since the 1611 translation of the KJV until now have been changes of spelling or printing only.”

That statement is a lie, and people who love Jesus & the Bible should not make such a claim — even if they do have the best of intentions in doing so!

So here is a list of significant changes (i.e., changes which affect meaning) made to the KJV text since 1611. The 1611 reading is first, followed by the 1769.

* 1 Corinthians 12:28 – “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments”
* Joshua 3:11 – “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord”
* 2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”
* Isaiah 49:13 – “for God” vs. “for the LORD”
* Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”
* Jeremiah 51:30 – “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwellingplaces”
* Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may”
* Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”
* Ezekiel 24:7 – “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”
* Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”
* Daniel 3:15 – “a fierie furnace” vs. “a burning fiery furnace”
* Matthew 14:9 – “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”
* 1 Corinthians 15:6 – “And that” vs. “After that”
* 1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”

http://rickbeckman.org/kjv-1611-vs-kjv-1769/

--------

Samuel 07-02-2009 10:48 PM

I think 99.9% of the evidence he posted, is nothing more than bad 1611 spelling, and typo errors. Which went through quite a few editions, before they got all the wrinkles ironed out; but that does not constitute a different Bible, or subsequent re-translations.

However each MV that comes out, is re-translation of a re-translation. None of which agree with the others, just like the manuscripts they come from.

tonybones2112 07-03-2009 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cody1611 (Post 23149)
I read an article today by this guy named Rick Beckman trying to disprove the inspiration of the King James Bible by using the 1611 vs 1769 argument. Here is some of the article, tell me what you guys think.

-------

I have heard this enough in varying places that I wanted to post this just to help others not be duped by the statement: “The only changes made since the 1611 translation of the KJV until now have been changes of spelling or printing only.”

That statement is a lie, and people who love Jesus & the Bible should not make such a claim — even if they do have the best of intentions in doing so!

So here is a list of significant changes (i.e., changes which affect meaning) made to the KJV text since 1611. The 1611 reading is first, followed by the 1769.

* 1 Corinthians 12:28 – “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments”
* Joshua 3:11 – “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord”
* 2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”
* Isaiah 49:13 – “for God” vs. “for the LORD”
* Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”
* Jeremiah 51:30 – “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwellingplaces”
* Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may”
* Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”
* Ezekiel 24:7 – “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”
* Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”
* Daniel 3:15 – “a fierie furnace” vs. “a burning fiery furnace”
* Matthew 14:9 – “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”
* 1 Corinthians 15:6 – “And that” vs. “After that”
* 1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”

http://rickbeckman.org/kjv-1611-vs-kjv-1769/

--------

He himself is a liar Cody, he can't point to one "version" of the Bible he himself believes is perfect and inspired. I don't trust these people and their "differences" without actually seeing the texts myself, and it's a useless wild goose chase anyway over meaningless redundancies. What the people had in 1611 was perfect for them, what they had in 1660 was perfect for them, what the people had in 1769 was perfect for them, what we have today is perfect for us. What I want to know is how much preaching of the cross this man has done himself this week? Has he shown anyone this week how to be reconciled to God?

Paul tells us not to be an evangelist("evangelium", the man who declared the decrees of Caesar, a government office) but "do the work of..." an evangelist. Why is this man doing the work of a Jesuit? The Jesuits were set up specifically to fight the Reformation, to penetrate by means of deception and espionage any opposition to Romanism. What single publication has done the most damage to Rome, Pilgrim's Progress? Uncle Tom's Cabin? Webster's Dictionary of 1828? No, your KJV in any edition. Why does this man have a website devoted to the differences in editions of a Bible, who pays for it, who supports it? Who hates the KJV more than any organization on this planet?

These people, from Westcott/Hort on to today remind me of the demon possessed girl in Acts 16. ANYTHING they can do to impede, to obstruct the preaching of the cross they'll do it. Because they are ashamed of the gospel of Christ, we are not. I rarely "go to the Greek", but look at that word "diobalos", translated "devil". It means to "cast down between, to obstruct". We say today, a roadblock. Why do they want to erode, to break down, the authority of the words you read and preach? So they can change them.

If this man wants to be a devil. let him be one. Don't let them obstruct your ministry of reconciliation. The Senate "health care" bill places a 1000 dollar fine on people who do not take the insurance, we are heading towards dictatorship, you and I will live to see all "versions" of the Bible banned, the KJV included.

Satan's most dear wish. Preach the cross now.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

bibleprotector 07-03-2009 08:29 AM

Whether we look at the 1769 Edition or the 1611 Edition, we can see that in our KJB, there is only one version, and one translation.

The list supplied by Beckman would be "significant" if they actually were changes in the text and translation of the KJB, but of course nobody can prove that. The fact is that these differences are mainly typographical errors in the first printing of the Bible, and in some cases, the standardisation of the language. They are not "significant" differences, because nothing actually was changed, just presentational issues remedied.

magicref 07-03-2009 08:45 AM

I wrote elsewhere on this site (under "of Castles and Nations" topic) a possible perspective on the KJVO viewpoint:

"KJVO believe that around the late 1500's God began orchestrating things to bring the jealousy of King James and the learned Scholars (not perfect in any sense) to the right place and the right time, along with the appropriate Greek and Hebrew texts. These texts were not necessarily all GOLD in themselves, but were sufficient for the job. God, through His inspiration, enabled these fallible men, working off the base of other great men raised up by Him previously (Coverdale, Tyndale, etc.), to create a "very good" Bible in 1611 of almost pure "gold". By the time of 1769, this version was cleaned up, and is now contains ALL the GOLD, none of the dross, and is the perfect Word of God in the English language. The fruit of the KJV has been its widespread use throughout the World and its proven accuracy. Also, if all English speaking believers would use it as their base, we would ALL have the same standard to work from."

If this is the way God worked the preservation of His Word, then there could be expected to be variations between the 1611 and 1769 versions, even with the "significant" variations mentioned above. The way we know that no significant changes have taken place since 1769 is simply the fact that (as far as I know) there have not been any proper or accepted changes since then.

I don't think this is an answer that will satisfy the anti-KJ folks, but it makes sense to me!

Doug A.

bibleprotector 07-03-2009 08:50 AM

The text and translation of the KJB was complete in 1611.

Changes in proper traditional editions since 1611 have not altered the text and translation.

The changes in the Scripture in editions since the first one of 1611 are only the:
1. correction of typographical errors,
2. standardisation of the language, and
3. other editorial regularisation.

Accepted changes of this nature have occurred after 1769, but they cannot keep occurring today. Once we have arrived at the standard, which is the Cambridge Edition from the twentieth century, we cannot go either backward or further in changes, for to do so is only to go into problems or errors.

For more information, see my website: www.bibleprotector.com

PaulB 07-03-2009 09:39 AM

Strange foundation
 
Hi Cody – Thanks for your question.

Firstly, I haven’t come across this guy before and I’m not sure why he is so desperate to cast doubt over the authenticity of the word of God. What is he trying to prove other than convince God’s people and His enemies that there is no authentic Bible on earth?

Men like him get so agitated when the same methods of critique are applied to their modern versions, (labelling people like me as “liars, trouble makers, divisive and ignorant”) whilst they themselves seem to feel fully justified trying to destroy the authenticity of the KJB.

My question is – what is his problem with someone accepting the KJB as the authentic preserved word of God (why is a conviction that is so historic in its confession deemed to be such an unacceptable crime today?)

Secondly, I can’t see how his selected examples disprove his point that they are not printing issues. Where has he proved that that is not the case?

In his own statement of faith he says the following;
“If I were to describe myself, it would be something like this: I am a Calvinistic, Dispensational Presbyterian Credobaptist who believes in the complete inspiration, authority, and perfection of the Holy Scriptures.”

My question is – where are these Scriptures (seeing as his knowledge of them seems to give him such a confident position to disqualify authenticity of the KJB?) he obviously has to have this “final authority” at hand to criticise the so-called “ignorance” of the King James translators.

He also says: “I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, and unlimited inerrancy of the Holy Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16”. If this is so then why doesn’t he present that Bible to us?

This man seems to have gone out of his way to set up a web page, declare his statement of faith and present his ministry as a fundamental Christian witness. But what I really don’t understand is why the preservationists (such as me) are such a problem to him, when he (by his own admission) claims to believe the same thing but without a Bible to prove the point he is making.

God bless

PaulB

Steven Avery 07-04-2009 01:55 PM

Hi Folks,

Personally I do not see any difficuly in their being impurities in the 1611 that were corrected in the process leading to the pure text in our hands today, especially including the refinings of 1629 and 1637. As long as the 100% pure Bible is the result, and we have the word of God in purity and excellence, I see no difficulty whatsoever in this involving a process that continued after 1611.

Above Matthew says that the "text and translation" were complete in 1611, and mentions "editorial regularisation". The term is a bit vague, and we can see that as the one group of the three that might materially affect the Bible text. In fact, there are some differences that came forth, purifications an corrections, after 1611, and Matthew is likely aware of a few of the examples. Not many, very small in significance compared to other verse differentiations between Bibles, yet real nonetheless.

So by comparison to the changes in other Bibles, these are exceedingly small. And if a Bible believer affirms the 1611 as perfectly pure and refined -- while I would have great respect for their position, I believe that they will find themselves in a difficult situation in holding that position with consistency in the Bible version dialog. They may end up being harsh or dismissive with the questioners rather than walking an extra mile in analysis, depth and presentation. (Understanding that there is a place to 'cut bait' with the scoffer and skeptic.)

A lot of my thinking in this regard was influenced and I believe clarified and improved by the efforts of Matthew and others who have laboured with the PCE. Thus I do not think we do ourselves a favor by denying those few verses where the text actually did change from 1611 to the PCE (or 1769 or what we use today and accept as 100% pure). While the nattering nabobs may bring forth the question in order to try create a fog, we can use the extra inquiry to allow our belief and faith in the Bible in our hands to be strengthened that much more !

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Critical Thinking 07-04-2009 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 23244)
... Thus I do not think we do ourselves a favor by denying those few verses where the text actually did change from 1611 to the PCE (or 1769 or what we use today and accept as 100% pure). ...

Steven's statement is the only real answer to the original inquiry. Every one else seems to not want to deal with the core issue. Let's take another look at the other responses again --
Quote:

Originally Posted by Samuel
I think 99.9% of the evidence he posted, is nothing more than bad 1611 spelling, and typo errors. ...

No, the list is NOT presenting a majority of orthographic issues. Your incorrect reply does not help. Try actually reading them carefully, looking past the archaic spelling. Do you now see some completely different words? Do you now see words in one version lacking in the other?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonybone2112
He himself is a liar Cody, he can't point to one "version" of the Bible he himself believes is perfect and inspired. I don't trust these people and their "differences" without actually seeing the texts myself, and it's a useless wild goose chase anyway over meaningless redundancies. ...

Interesting opinions, but none of it addresses young Cody's question. You tore the man down, but not his evidence. I have a 1611 reprint and have looked at these verses compared to a modern KJV and the differences are genuinely present. Don't be such a coward. Deal with the facts. If you won't, people will begin to distrust you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector
... The list supplied by Beckman would be "significant" if they actually were changes in the text and translation of the KJB, but of course nobody can prove that. The fact is that these differences are mainly typographical errors in the first printing of the Bible, and in some cases, the standardisation of the language. They are not "significant" differences, because nothing actually was changed, just presentational issues remedied.

Perhaps nothing can be proved, but the differences (additional words, different words) are present in the 1611 text. For those that believe the 1611 was created perfect there is no such thing as an insignificant change. Again, these are NOT "mainly" accidental differences (G-o-d cannot be mispelled as t-h-e L-O-R-D). "Standardisation of the language" also known as "editorial regularisation" are nebulous and ambiguous terms. Its an escape to not deal with the question. C'mon, face the music. Get real, man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by magicref
If this is the way God worked the preservation of His Word, then there could be expected to be variations between the 1611 and 1769 versions, even with the "significant" variations mentioned above. The way we know that no significant changes have taken place since 1769 is simply the fact that (as far as I know) there have not been any proper or accepted changes since then.

You're just guessing, Doug. Circumstantial at best. A non-answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulB
... I can’t see how his selected examples disprove his point that they are not printing issues. Where has he proved that that is not the case? ...

When you read three additional words ("of the LORD" after "in the temple") do you really think it is just a "printing" issue? Well then, it just can't be proved either way. But it does exist. Why not deal with the issue and actually be helpful? Give the kid a substantial rebutal.

bibleprotector 07-06-2009 08:51 AM

Let us assess ideas, but let us not submit to “Only by pride cometh contention” (Prov. 13:10a).

The query at hand is, are there any significant differences between the First 1611 Edition and the 1769 Edition.

First of all, let us realise that what the printers printed is not exactly what the translators had. This is a known fact. What we cannot say is every last place where this is so, but we can have a good idea.

Second of all, we should be aware that the language and spelling was not standardised, so there are differences which have arisen from this having taken place in the history of the KING JAMES BIBLE.

Thirdly, there are changes due to editorial regularisation. This means that a more consistent use of italics has been introduced, and on occasions, a reframing of the English, or effects in the English for a consistency, or uniformity of usage, etc.

There is no real case for differences in the actual Version (Text)or Translation of the King James Bible.

* 1 Corinthians 12:28 – “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error. It was corrected to the translators’ intended rendering in 1629.

* Joshua 3:11 – “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error. It was corrected to the translators’ intended rendering in 1629.

* 2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error, where the Bishops’ text was retained by the typesetter without the translators’ emendation being added, consequently corrected in 1638.

* Isaiah 49:13 – “for God” vs. “for the LORD”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical/copyist error, where the Bishops’ text was retained by the typesetter without the translators’ emendation being taken, consequently corrected in 1638.

* Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error. It was corrected to the translators’ intended rendering in 1629.

* Jeremiah 51:30 – “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwellingplaces”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error, where the Bishops’ text was retained by the typesetter without the translators’ emendation being taken, consequently corrected in 1629.

* Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error. It was corrected to the translators’ intended rendering in 1638.

* Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error. It was corrected to the translators’ intended rendering in 1638.

* Ezekiel 24:7 – “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error, where the Bishops’ text was retained by the typesetter without the translators’ emendation being taken, consequently corrected in 1613.

* Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error, where the Bishops’ text was retained by the typesetter without the translators’ emendation being taken, consequently corrected in 1638.

* Daniel 3:15 – “a fierie furnace” vs. “a burning fiery furnace”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error, where the typesetter omitted a word from the translators’ intended rendering, consequently corrected in 1638.

* Matthew 14:9 – “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”

This is utter foolishness, in that apostrophes were not used in 1611, and clearly ONE oath was made, not multiple ones, which is the suggestion of some who rely upon book-learning of the Greek.

* 1 Corinthians 15:6 – “And that” vs. “After that”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error, where the typesetter accidentally set the word from the previous verse, consequently corrected in 1616.

* 1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”

There is an extremely high degree of probability that this was a typographical error, where the typesetter omitted the words from the translators’ intended rendering (and Bishops’ Bible), consequently corrected in 1629.

Almost all these above cases clearly fall into the category of typographical errors in the first printing of 1611.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23250)
Steven's statement is the only real answer to the original inquiry. Every one else seems to not want to deal with the core issue. Let's take another look at the other responses again –

Critical’s “core issue”, which he conveniently thrusts upon this inquiry, is his a priori assumption that there are actually significant differences between 1611 and today.

In the above examples, is there really a case where there are actually or even probably, or even possibly, underlying textual and translational differences? I do not think so.

When it comes to a few other cases of minor importance, it could be said that there is some sort of variation in the original language details, but even these cases can be explained, and are certainly not in the examples listed above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23250)
No, the list is NOT presenting a majority of orthographic issues. Your incorrect reply does not help. Try actually reading them carefully, looking past the archaic spelling. Do you now see some completely different words? Do you now see words in one version lacking in the other?

Looking past Critical’s abrasive (and condescending) tone, I wonder how he can state, “one version lacking in another”. Does Critical believe that the 1611 Edition of the KJB is a different VERSION to the 1769 Edition of the KJB?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23250)
Interesting opinions, but none of it addresses young Cody's question. You tore the man down, but not his evidence. I have a 1611 reprint and have looked at these verses compared to a modern KJV and the differences are genuinely present. Don't be such a coward. Deal with the facts. If you won't, people will begin to distrust you.

Again, looking past the rudeness, I would hasten to point out that Cody’s inquiry is genuine, but Cody is quoting from Rick Beckman, who makes no secret of his rejection of the KJBO view. Is Critical agreeing with Beckmen? It seems that way!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23250)
Perhaps nothing can be proved, but the differences (additional words, different words) are present in the 1611 text.

Of course things can be proved. But not every last detail can be said to be so. Just because things cannot be categorically stated does not mean that they cannot be valid assumptions, or taken by faith. We cannot say the name of every last translator, but we can say the names of many, and we know that the KJB was translated. Let us accept things as they stand, and not allow some minor points to cloud the facts. It is as if those few questions are the entry point for the enemy to make some great doubt, when in fact, what we do know is enough to make a certain case about, covering all the minor things we cannot certainly say. This is a whole lot better than doubting everything, or holding nothing certain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23250)
For those that believe the 1611 was created perfect there is no such thing as an insignificant change.

Really? I’d say that is a lie. In fact, even James White, who is ardently against the KJBO position admits that the differences between 1611 and now are not significant. Clearly, the differences are not significant to KJBOs who know something about typographical errors and spelling alterations, of which there is a sufficient knowledge, so as silly disputes about “perfect” do not shake their faith. (Shades of "Which edition?") Yes, the KJB was and is perfect, but the printers were not perfect, and so it follows that the perfect Bible would be printed with errors. Let’s be clear: there are no real alterations in the text and translation of the KJB, only minor alterations in matters to do with presentation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23250)
Again, these are NOT "mainly" accidental differences (G-o-d cannot be mispelled as t-h-e L-O-R-D).

In the above list, yes indeed mainly accidental origins, deliberately corrected, creating seeming differences. But the case of “God” and “the LORD” is a kind of typographical error, that is, the copyist error where the emendation upon the previous text (the Bishops’ Bible) was accidentally ignored by the printer. This is a fair assumption. But when it comes overall to differences between 1769 and 1611, checking the entire Bible through, most of the differences would be in mere orthography and spelling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23250)
"Standardisation of the language" also known as "editorial regularisation" are nebulous and ambiguous terms.

“Standardisation of the English language” is a fact, as is highlighted in the 1750s, a different phenomenon to that of “editorial regularisation”, which deals with consistency of use, word forms, italic typeface, etc. While these terms both are far-reaching, they are not in the end analysis either “nebulous” nor “ambiguous”, for that ultimately the fair and deliberate examination of all cases could with a high degree of certainty put most differences into definitely one of these categories, including the class of typographical (or copyist) errors, and that there are peculiarities to each of these, so that there is enough to warrant taxonomisation into rigid positions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23250)
Its an escape to not deal with the question. C'mon, face the music. Get real, man.

If the question is not answered to Critical’s liking, I think that Critical would say it is not an answer. But does Critical give an answer? No, he is pleased to play rather poorly Devil’s Advocate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23250)
You're just guessing, Doug. Circumstantial at best. A non-answer.

And so Critical gives no answer but to reject ours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23250)
When you read three additional words ("of the LORD" after "in the temple") do you really think it is just a "printing" issue? Well then, it just can't be proved either way. But it does exist. Why not deal with the issue and actually be helpful? Give the kid a substantial rebutal.

I think there is plenty of good stuff for Cody here. Maybe not the kind of information that Critical would like to give Cody, but I think Cody would be better without someone who calls our answers “non-answers”. Well, if the omitting words which appears (and can be given with various valid arguments to be) accidental is not a printing issue, I wonder what it is?

I suspect that Critical really thinks our KJB translators “got it wrong”. If not that, then he must think that all our KJBs today are “wrong” because they don’t match the first 1611 Edition. If either case were his thinking, he would have to try and explain why the KJB has been blessed throughout its history.

But I don't expect answers from him, going on his present demeanour, just unruly questionings.

Critical Thinking 07-06-2009 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 23334)
... Almost all these above cases clearly fall into the category of typographical errors in the first printing of 1611. ...

Mostly I agree with you. The information in the top half of your post is closer to the mark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 23334)
* Matthew 14:9 – “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”

This is utter foolishness, in that apostrophes were not used in 1611, and clearly ONE oath was made, not multiple ones, which is the suggestion of some who rely upon book-learning of the Greek. ...

It is true that possessive apostrophes were not in standardized use at that time. However, I think you are wrong about the word's number; it is plural, not singular. The associated Greek article confirms it is plural. It has exactly the same Greek form as found in Matthew 5:33 which is rendered "oaths" (plural). One possible way of looking at it: one statement was spoken, but it was accepted by multiple people.

bibleprotector 07-06-2009 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23343)
Mostly I agree with you. The information in the top half of your post is closer to the mark.

It is true that possessive apostrophes were not in standardized use at that time. However, I think you are wrong about the word's number; it is plural, not singular. It has exactly the same Greek form as found in Matthew 5:33 which is rendered "oaths" (plural). One possible way of looking at it: one statement was spoken, but it was accepted by multiple people.

What mark do you allude to? I will now present the KJB, which is pure, true and right.

Mt*14:9 And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her.
Mr*6:26 And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his oath's sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her.

Every normal accepted traditional edition of the King James Bible which has apostrophes shows that Herod gave ONE oath. To deny this, by claim that "oaths'" is legitimate is to reject the King James Bible.

Yes, Critical, you reject the KJB when you claim that "oath's" should be "plural, not singular". And why do you reject the KJB rendering of "oath's"? I know why... "Greek".

You are a Bible corrector. You have been exposed.

Critical Thinking 07-06-2009 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 23346)
... Every normal accepted traditional edition of the King James Bible which has apostrophes shows that Herod gave ONE oath. To deny this, by claim that "oaths'" is legitimate is to reject the King James Bible.

Yes, Critical, you reject the KJB when you claim that "oath's" should be "plural, not singular". And why do you reject the KJB rendering of "oath's"? I know why... "Greek".

You are a Bible corrector. You have been exposed.

I accept the 1611 King James Bible which has "oaths". Will you deny my KJB is true?

bibleprotector 07-06-2009 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23350)
I accept the 1611 King James Bible which has "oaths". Will you deny my KJB is true?

In November 1833, Cambridge Editor Thomas Turton wrote, “Let me take this opportunity to state, as my deliberate opinion, that the Text of 1611 is, in consequence of its incorrectness, quite unworthy to be considered as the Standard of the Bibles now printed; and to express my conscientious belief, that to revert to that Text, as the Standard, would be productive of serious evils.”

Are we to be bound to the 1611 Edition, which is not standardised? After all, KJBOs agree that the text of the 1769 family is the correct paternal standard to our present editions.

In 1832, a representative from Oxford University Press wrote, “With regard to the text, the Delegates after considering the great incorrectness of the early editions, are of opinion that the text of Dr Blayney was formed with much care and judgment; that it furnishes on the whole, a very good basis for editions of the Bible, and that the confidence now generally reposed in it, ought not be disturbed on slight grounds.”

Should we disturb the overwhelming witness to the legitimacy of "oath's" on the grounds that the edition of 1611, which had no apostrophes, should be somehow the real presentation of the "King James Bible" against any of the present editions which King James Bible Only people actually use on Sunday mornings?

Thomas Turton also wrote, “The revision, indeed, was a work of great labour; and it cannot be too steadily borne in mind that, two centuries ago, there lived men who possessed learning to discover the anomalies with which the Text of 1611 abounded; formed resolutions to remove them; and had diligence sufficient to carry their purposes into execution. In this way was transmitted to succeeding times a Text which compared with that of 1611, may be considered as a model of correctness. The Italics of 1638 were speedily adopted. They became part of the established Text; which Text, after having been more than once subjected to the scrutiny of persons well qualified for the undertaking, was revised, for the last time, in the year 1769.”

The evidence is overwhelming for oath's.

Critical Thinking 07-06-2009 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 23352)
... After all, KJBOs agree that the text of the 1769 family is the correct paternal standard to our present editions. ...

I did NOT so agree. Are you saying my 1611 KJB is wrong? I though this board defended the KJB!

bibleprotector 07-06-2009 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23360)
I did NOT so agree. Are you saying my 1611 KJB is wrong? I though this board defended the KJB!

How can the typographical errors of the first edition of 1611 be right? Anyone who defends the Word of God does not defend typographical errors as though they are the Word of GOD!

Likewise, it is plain that the language in print has been standardised, so that we now have uniform spellings and grammar. And since the King James Bible has been purified in regards to the apostrophes, it is entirely proper that we receive this.

The fact is that the proper King James Bible editions being used in the last two centuries have had apostrophes, and there is no need to suddenly change or reject them on the word "oath's".

tonybones2112 07-06-2009 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magicref (Post 23178)
I wrote elsewhere on this site (under "of Castles and Nations" topic) a possible perspective on the KJVO viewpoint:

"KJVO believe that around the late 1500's God began orchestrating things to bring the jealousy of King James and the learned Scholars (not perfect in any sense) to the right place and the right time, along with the appropriate Greek and Hebrew texts. These texts were not necessarily all GOLD in themselves, but were sufficient for the job. God, through His inspiration, enabled these fallible men, working off the base of other great men raised up by Him previously (Coverdale, Tyndale, etc.), to create a "very good" Bible in 1611 of almost pure "gold". By the time of 1769, this version was cleaned up, and is now contains ALL the GOLD, none of the dross, and is the perfect Word of God in the English language. The fruit of the KJV has been its widespread use throughout the World and its proven accuracy. Also, if all English speaking believers would use it as their base, we would ALL have the same standard to work from."

If this is the way God worked the preservation of His Word, then there could be expected to be variations between the 1611 and 1769 versions, even with the "significant" variations mentioned above. The way we know that no significant changes have taken place since 1769 is simply the fact that (as far as I know) there have not been any proper or accepted changes since then.

I don't think this is an answer that will satisfy the anti-KJ folks, but it makes sense to me!

Doug A.

Doug, I was hit recently with the "...so God chose of all people England and King James to 'preserve' in one version by supernatural means the original mauscripts in English?'

According to the World Health Organization 10,000 children are conceived on this planet each hour, that means God forms in the womb 10,000 children an hour, 10,000 human bodies, the most complex machine in the known Universe, why can't He preserve His words, every one of them, for me and you? He holds this Universe together by the word of His power, has He contracted Alzheimer's, did He forget what He wrote?

I'm by no means a Charismatic, but when you touch the keyboard of your computer it means the molecules of your fingers and the keys are in phase with each other, otherwise your fingers would go right through them, God holds an intimate knowledge of every quantum particle in the Universe together, why can't He preserve His words? Where are these people's faith?

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

PaulB 07-06-2009 03:38 PM

Critical thinking
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23250)
When you read three additional words ("of the LORD" after "in the temple") do you really think it is just a "printing" issue? Well then, it just can't be proved either way. But it does exist. Why not deal with the issue and actually be helpful? Give the kid a substantial rebutal.

Hi - In response your point, perhaps I wasn't as clear as I intended to communicate when trying to help Codi. The way I see it is that the 1611 version probably missed out the three words in a similar way as they did with ""Thou shat kill". Printing was in its infancy at the time and these words seem to have somehow missed the final product. Because if that was not the case then I'm sure that they wouldn't have been inserted in later editions.

Hope this makes things clearer

God bless

PaulB

Critical Thinking 07-07-2009 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 23362)
How can the typographical errors of the first edition of 1611 be right? Anyone who defends the Word of God does not defend typographical errors as though they are the Word of GOD! ...

You are a Bible corrector. You have been exposed.

My 1611 KJB states "oaths". There is no apostrophe, so I could not know whether it means singular or plural. It is not obvious from the context, such as the case of "Gods" in John 8:47 (clearly there is only one God with a capital G, so therefore "God's" would be accurate). So, I refer to the Greek for guidance here. Although individual manuscripts were believers' imperfect Bibles also, the majority concensus is sure. Where else can I go? The translators are at their reward; their notes are lost (it is doubtful that there would have been a comment specifically about this issue). What man can I trust?

I believe the modern printers have made an error by placing the apostrophe before the s. It is not significant, as long as one understands the truth. Just as our Christian brethern had printers' mistakes in their KJBs, so do we have a few. Perhaps someday there will be edition of the KJB that will correct these printers' error, but until then I will stick to my 1611.

bibleprotector 07-07-2009 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23404)
You are a Bible corrector. You have been exposed.

I do not mind being called a corrector if it means pointing out the errors of those who claim that the KJB says something which it does not say. I support the correcting of typographical errors.

I have not corrected the text or translation of the KJB, nor have I suggested a change based on some appeal to "Neviim" or something. A person who looks to the Greek over and above the English Received Bible, that is, the KJB, is the "corrector" (i.e. corruptor) who needs to be exposed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23404)
My 1611 KJB states "oaths".

The King James Bible does not say "oaths". You are pointing to an edition with no apostrophes in it. But since there are now apostrophes properly placed throughout, we accept the apostrophes.

This leads me to think that if you reject the apostrophes (at least in two places), you may be rejecting all kinds of things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23404)
There is no apostrophe, so I could not know whether it means singular or plural.

So, how will you resolve the issue? On what basis do you claim that "oath's" must be altered to a plural form?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23404)
It is not obvious from the context, such as the case of "Gods" in John 8:47 (clearly there is only one God with a capital G, so therefore "God's" would be accurate).

I am not at all thinking about whether or not the apostrophes are right. I know they are right. And I know without having to look up each case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23404)
So, I refer to the Greek for guidance here.

You admit your erroneous approach. Well, let me now show you how this is faulty. First, there is no final Greek text to appeal to as a perfect standard. Second, various people have various opinions on what Greek words mean. Thirdly, by taking this approach, you are essentially rejecting that the KJB men, the proper KJB editors and many Christians who used and supported the KJB were right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23404)
Although individual manuscripts were believers' imperfect Bibles also, the majority concensus is sure.

This statement makes no sense. Are you claiming the KJB is imperfect? Are you claiming editions of the KJB are all imperfect, which means that the KJB really is imperfect?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23404)
Where else can I go? The translators are at their reward; their notes are lost (it is doubtful that there would have been a comment specifically about this issue). What man can I trust?

So you doubt that the KJB, which has been printed in thousands of editions from 1611 to the present year is trustworthy? Do differences in editions cause you to doubt? Are you unsure of what the KJB actually is, and therefore must console yourself with "the Greek"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23404)
I believe the modern printers have made an error by placing the apostrophe before the s.

How many other errors do you claim are in all our KJB editions printed since 1769? In other words, you doubt we actually have God's Word, or certain possession of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23404)
It is not significant, as long as one understands the truth.

It is significant indeed to reject the KJB as it stands. It is significant that you seek to match up to the standard of Greek, and to the standard of an edition which clearly contains numerous typographical errors, spelling irregularities and the like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23404)
Just as our Christian brethern had printers' mistakes in their KJBs, so do we have a few.

How can you claim this? If what you were saying was true, you would have to show us what you think they are, otherwise we do not have the knowledge of the Scripture to the jot and tittle today, and that we are somehow being "mislead" when we have doctrines which might hinge upon what you claim is a printer's mistake in present editions!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23404)
Perhaps someday there will be edition of the KJB that will correct these printers' error, but until then I will stick to my 1611.

If you are being serious, that is very very sad. First, because "oath's" is not an error, but you think it is. Second, because you are open to be compromised with a new edition of the KJB, for example, Scrivener's one, which does have the erroneous "oaths'" rendering. Third, because you are not believing we actually have the exact knowledge of the Word of God today. Fourth, because it would mean that all normal Bibles since 1769, particularly the ones used by KJBO folk, were all with errors.

That question "which edition?" must be answered.

Critical Thinking 07-07-2009 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 23405)
... I support the correcting of typographical errors. ...

Evidently, you do not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 23405)
... The King James Bible does not say "oaths". You are pointing to an edition with no apostrophes in it. But since there are now apostrophes properly placed throughout, we accept the apostrophes. ...

My KJB says "oaths". I do not have to accept the apostrophes of printers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 23405)
... So, how will you resolve the issue? On what basis do you claim that "oath's" must be altered to a plural form? ...

How do you resolve the issue? Do you accept some man's word. What is the man's name that put the apostrophe before the s? My 1611 KJB came first, it is your Bible that is the altered one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 23405)
... First, there is no final Greek text to appeal to as a perfect standard. ...

There are no perfect Greek manuscripts or texts. Correct, but so what? The manuscripts were some ancient believers' (imperfect) Bibles. From those MSS many printed Greek (better, but imperfect) texts were made, and then early English (imperfect) translations. Is there any doubt among the Greek texts that the word translated by the KJB men should be "oaths"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 23405)
... Second, various people have various opinions on what Greek words mean. ...

Among people that understand Greek, is there any disagreement that the word translated "oaths" is plural in Greek here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 23405)
... Thirdly, by taking this approach, you are essentially rejecting that the KJB men, the proper KJB editors and many Christians who used and supported the KJB were right. ...

Nope. I am rejecting that the printers got it right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 23405)
... It is significant indeed to reject the KJB as it stands. It is significant that you seek to match up to the standard of Greek, and to the standard of an edition which clearly contains numerous typographical errors, spelling irregularities and the like. ...

You reject the 1611 KJB as it stands. If you sit in judgement of the 1611 KJB without any evidence, you're just guessing.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 23405)
... How can you claim this? If what you were saying was true, you would have to show us what you think they are, ...

Well, I tried to show you this one (actually two) but you won't accept it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 23405)
... otherwise we do not have the knowledge of the Scripture to the jot and tittle today, and that we are somehow being "mislead" when we have doctrines which might hinge upon what you claim is a printer's mistake in present editions! ...

Don't be riduclous. The printers' errors don't change doctrine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 23405)
... That question "which edition?" must be answered.

1611, duh.

bibleprotector 07-07-2009 11:38 AM

Quote:

I do not have to accept the apostrophes of printers.
This is a rebellious attitude. After all, Psalm 68:11 talks about the publishing of God’s Word. Do you reject the publishers? Printers are part of that publishing.

In fact, how do you even know God’s Word in English, except for printers and editors? If you reject them, you are denying the godly work of correcting typographical errors which they performed!

Quote:

How do you resolve the issue?
The issue is resolved by relying upon Divine Providence.

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

The Scripture lays out the doctrine of providence in the supply of what we should receive.
1. The KJB is the final form of the Received Text, and the Word of God given to the whole world.
2. There is a line of proper editions which bring us to the purified presentation of the KJB. The same text and translation is found throughout the proper lineage of the editions of the KJB. One edition in this is the end, whereafter no more “improvements” can be made.

There are several reasons why the 1611 Edition cannot be upheld as the standard form, and why we must stand for a certain present edition as the final form.

For example, it is well reported and historically known that there were printer’s mistakes in the first edition of 1611. Therefore, the second edition must be better than the first where it corrects the first, but it also contained other printer’s mistakes, which then raises the question whether these were also corrections or not.

Therefore, we must accept the revision 1629 Edition as superior, and the revision of the 1638 Edition more so. This is because the editors included some of the surviving translators. The master copy of the translators was in the possession of the Cambridge printers at that time. There was afterward testimony from various quarters as to superiority of the 1638 work, which also brought in better uniformity in spelling, and so on.

The 1769 Edition must also be accepted, for the great improvements in the standardisation of the language, which have been so widely recognised, and that it has become the basis of all modern editions. The 1769 cannot be rejected, or called illegitimate.

Quote:

My 1611 KJB came first, it is your Bible that is the altered one.
That is the very argument of those who support Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Now, the truth is that proper editorial work has taken place in the history of the KJB, and that the alterations are actually right, because they are bringing the correct text and translation of the men of 1611 to presentational perfection. You cannot claim that the first 1611 edition is perfect in its presentation.

Quote:

There are no perfect Greek manuscripts or texts. Correct, but so what? The manuscripts were some ancient believers' (imperfect) Bibles. From those MSS many printed Greek (better, but imperfect) texts were made, and then early English (imperfect) translations. Is there any doubt among the Greek texts that the word translated by the KJB men should be "oaths"?
The doubt you have is based on wrongly going to the Greek. Do you know that King James Bible ONLY means that the English is correct and final authority. And it should be obvious that in practice, the editions from 1769 are held to be portraying the Scripture in the most accurate English form. Why would you be trying to say that the 1611 printing, which clearly meant “oath’s”, is somehow different to the present KJB, which actually has “oath’s”.

Quote:

Among people that read Greek, is there any disagreement that the word translated "oaths" is plural in Greek here?
You are asking a true King James Bible onlyist this question. The answer is that the King James Bible is correct. The King James Bible states “oath’s”. To say otherwise is to corrupt the King James Bible.

Note, you cannot have the apostrophe-less form of “oaths”, as this does not make grammatical sense. The contention is between where the apostrophe should be placed. You cannot argue — please think honestly and critically here — that the 1611 edition is showing where to place the apostrophe, because it does not use them. Therefore you are relying upon your present knowledge of Greek. In other words, you are just trying to twist the KJB to your own opinion.

1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

Quote:

Nope. I am rejecting that the printers got it right.
The origin of “oath’s” is not merely with printers, but with learned editors.

Quote:

You reject the 1611 KJB as it stands.
I accept the 1611 KJB as it stands. It clearly is against what you are claiming.

Quote:

If you sit in judgement of the 1611 KJB without any evidence, you're just guessing.
I have already shown how we can find out what is the purified presentation of the KJB. The 1611 Edition cannot be used to counter the fact that “oath’s” was meant then, as it is correctly presented now in all our Bibles today.

Quote:

Well, I tried to show you this one (actually two) but you won't accept it.
So you admit to rejecting the KJB as it stands, and to corrupting it.

Quote:

Don't be riduclous. The printers' errors don't change doctrine.
Then you will accept that the word “oath’s” is correct, because to say otherwise is to change doctrine, i.e. teaching of Scripture.

And now... That question "Which edition?" must be answered.

Quote:

1611, duh.
Which 1611 Edition was the right one? In Ex. 21:26 “them” is found for “him” in some copies of the first issue, as is “he” for “she” in Song of Sol. 2:7.

A far more logical view is to believe that our present editions are superior, and that they are all correct with “oath’s” at Matthew 14:9 and Mark 6:26.

Rejecting the King James Bible in favour of the Greek is an untenable position.

Deceptively arguing concerning the 1611 Edition is utter vanity and foolishness.

greenbear 07-07-2009 11:45 AM

Does God have respect unto a man who approaches Him with the attitude that he will believe what God says about Himself if it agrees with what the man believes God should be like? Of course not. A man should learn what God says about Himself and form his opinions based on God's revelation of Himself to man.

Does God have respect unto a man who approaches His word with the attitude that he will believe a particular translation, in a particular language, at a particular point in time is His pure, perfect, complete word only if He accomplished it in the way that man believes it should be accomplished? Of course not. A man should examine the internal evidence that that translation is indeed the pure, perfect, complete revelation of Himself to man then search to discover the means by which God has accomplished it.

CT, you are requiring of God that He would have preordained the use of apostrophes at that time and that He would have caused there to be no printing errors and that the spelling of names were standardized. Why require that of God to believe? Search for internal evidence to support your historical interpretation of God's preservation and refinement of His word down to the present time, not the other way around.

If you determine the KJB is not His perfect, pure, complete word that He has promised He would preserve then please tell us what is? Or perhaps in your case, which versions are? The point of your argument seems to be that the AV1611 was full of errors that had to be corrected so we are hypocrites to say the KJB is the only standard today, not one of many.

Steven Avery 07-19-2009 11:13 PM

Matthew 14:9 - nevertheless for the oath's sake
 
Hi Folks,

Matthew 14:9
And the king was sorry:
nevertheless for the oath's sake,
and them which sat with him at meat,
he commanded it to be given her.

At least one very important point was not covered above, and lest readers get misled by some uncritical thinking, a little more exposition is in order.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking
Among people that understand Greek, is there any disagreement that the word translated "oaths" is plural in Greek here?

A Greek plural form .. definitely .. a plural of number when translated into English .. most assuredly not. (This is similar in concept to all those places in Hebrew, familiar to many, where a plural form is not 'number' and translates to a singular in English.)

First, note that three learned historical commentators (I only looked up three, three of quality and depth, and four as Matthew Henry references Henry Hammond), all extremely Greek-savvy and all at times departing from the King James Bible, fully and completely took Matthew 14:9 as one (singular) oath.

Matthew Henry
Herod’s grant of this demand (v. 9); The king was sorry, at least took on him to be so, but, for the oath’s sake, he commanded it to be given her. Here is, [1.] A pretended concern for John. The king was sorry. Note, Many a man sins with regret, that never has any true regret for his sin; is sorry to sin, yet is utterly a stranger to godly sorrow; sins with reluctancy, and yet goes on to sin. Dr. Hammond suggests, that one reason of Herod’s sorrow was, because it was his birth-day festival, and it would be an ill omen to shed blood on that day, which, as other days of joy, used to be graced with acts of clemency; Natalem colimus, tacete lites*We are celebrating the birth-day, let there be no contentions. [2.] Here is a pretended conscience of his oath, with a specious show of honour and honesty; he must needs do something, for the oath’s sake.


(continues with more discussion of the singular oath)

Albert Barnes
For the oath's sake -
Herod felt that he was bound by this oath; but he was not. The oath should not have been taken: but, being taken, he could not be bound by it. No oath could justify a man in committing murder. The true principle is, that Herod was bound by a prior obligation - by the law of God - not to commit murder; and no act of his, be it an oath or anything else, could free him from that obligation.

John Gill
Nevertheless for his oath's sake;
that he might not be guilty of perjury, chose rather to commit murder; though it would have been no iniquity in him, to have acted contrary to such a rash promise, and wicked oath; which would have been better to have been broke, than kept;


In fact, Jeffrey Nachimson in one article even shows a more modernist Greek grammarian viewpoint on this, including "Zerwick calls it pluralis categoriae", and discusses verse examples where the Greek plural does not have to be an English plural of number. Max Zerwick (1901-1975) was the author of " A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament", which was likely the reference. I will forego for now going into any additional technical stuff.

As an aside, this is one of the dozens of "hard errors" in many modern versions .. however not due to the alexandrian text, simply mistranslation.

Oh, there are some ironies here. This is one of the few Daniel Wallace NetBible non-blunders. Following the proper grammar and the context consistency the NetBible has the singular 'oath', "Although it grieved the king, because of his oath". And the NKJV, not surprisingly, blunders away with the errant "because of the oaths". (Suggestion: keep that handy for the NKJV error listings.)

=======================================

One other comment on the thread above.

I simply cannot agree with looking some of the 1611 changes that were discussed as: "extremely high degree of probability" (Matthew) of typographical error. In some cases, as I indicated in my post on page 1, I believe it very possible that the 1611 had a flaw that was corrected, most especially in the two revisions that were done in the early 1600s, the latter one definitely including two of the original King James Bible translators. Yes, it is possible that each and every such flaw was a "typographical error", however I see no "extremely high probability" of this. Personally, I see no difficulty in the purification process continuing beyond 1611 unto perfection in the Bible in our hands.

Shalom,
Steven Avery


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study