View Single Post
  #82  
Old 05-02-2008, 01:57 PM
sophronismos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
Scrivener's relatively recent flawed Greek text is of no consequence.
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.

Last edited by sophronismos; 05-02-2008 at 02:01 PM.