Thread: 1611 vs 1769
View Single Post
Old 07-07-2009, 11:38 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587

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!

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.

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.

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”.

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,

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.