Well, I was glad to catch those words “The end” by Sophro... Yet, I might use this opportunity to explain a few things to those who wish to be drawn from the milk.
I would call the so-called updating of a word in the KJB a corruption now. Notice the word “now”. I said, “any change, so much as of 'sith' to 'since' now is an act of corruption and error.”
Sith is not just another spelling of since. In fact, they are two different words with two different meanings. While the meanings are similar, they are not identical.
We of course recognise that the King James Bible was not made by inspiration, and have no problem in seeing that various words appear to have changed since 1611, as there has been a standardisation of the language after all. The problem is in any unauthorised, untraditional, unbelieving, neo-modern, departing-from-truth style changes which could (and do) occur.
Actually, “divers” and “diverse” are two different word forms. Both appear in the KJB. The same with “throughly” and “thoroughly”.
As for the pretend (even if factual) knowledge at some word pronunciations, knowing a few obscure facts (and I know numerous obscure facts, which I could lay out if I were into pride) does not amount to anything if it is but to be a ranter and railer against the truth.
Then I find I am the falsely called the champion (or was that champaign?) of 1611 orthography. Even though I emphasise the purification of the King James Bible, such as correction of typographical errors, standardisation of the language and the regularisation, somehow I am supposed to be standing for the impurities from 1611? (The changes in the King James Bible from 1769 were long before I was born, and even those from around 1900.)
I read the accusation that we “insist on some non-existent Cambridge perfect text that is undefinable...”
That is complete ignorance. Not only was the Pure Cambridge Edition printed millions of times in the twentieth century, but I have listed its contents in detail, and provided exact electronic copies of it. How could that be “non existent”?
Of course "only the original autographs were inspired". What kind of accusation is that? That’s like saying, “You believe the Bible!”
Again, there is a false accusation about “the crazy over-the-top KJVO who is constantly looking for the original perfect Cambridge KJV original autographs?”
That is complete foolishness which doesn’t make any sense. We have fair and easy the pure Word in front of us.
“Is the text of your KJV basically the same as all other KJVs, with some spelling variation that's to be expected from 400 years of changes in spelling in the English language and printing the text for all that time? You do? Good, so you've got the word of God then. The end.”
I could have concluded that we had the Word in a much gentler spirit. (And with accurate statements.)
“And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.” (Amos 8:12).
|