[George]

"Furthermore from Tyndale to 1611 there were 7 major English translations all of which were faithful to the Erasmus text (who by the way was called the incarnation of the devil by Luther). There were also 5 different revisions of the 1611. They were done in 1613, 1615, 1629, 1638, and 1762. The 1762 edition is the one which is used today. The only things changed in these editions were spelling and grammar, as I understand it. The Cambridge edition and the Oxford edition (used by Scofield) are different in 3 places. Which one is exactly perfect? In 1881 the King James Revision commitee met again, ostensibly to check one more time for spelling and grammar errors. This, as you probably know, is where the infamous Dr. Hort and Dr. Westcott reinserted the Critical Text. The changes were so drastic that they had to rename their text the Revised Version.
I am not tyring to steal anyone's faith. I am not trying to obfuscate on the issues. But this information that I just gave you is worth looking at and pondering over. If you choose not to even consider it. Than your faith is not based on truth. I don't mean to be contentious, but that is how I see it. I want an honest answer to the facts. I believe that the men who originated the critical text will face the fires of hell for taking out words that God intended us to have. I believe the NIV is blasphemous in its wrenching of the truth. But I also believe that truth can stand scrutiny."

Aloha Daniel,

I'm somewhat disappointed that you haven't addressed brother Will Kinney's question, and that you have ignored everything that I have posted in regards to some of your comments. I'm not trying to "strain at a gnat" here, but some of the things that you have stated in your last Post (#91) need "clarification".

You said:

"The Cambridge edition and the Oxford edition (used by Scofield) are different in 3 places. Which one is exactly perfect?"

Are you claiming: IF there are spelling or grammatical differences between the Cambridge & Oxford King James Bibles that one of them would be in error? Do spelling or grammatical differences equal WORD CHANGES? Is God concerned with spelling and grammatical rules and changes? Or is He concerned with His Holy words? Since you didn't spell out what you believe about this issue, but inserted this statement within your Post, I'm curious as to whether you personally believe - IF there are spelling or grammatical differences between King James Bibles, whether you would consider one of those Bibles to be in error, and by inference, IMPERFECT?

In keeping with my habit of trying to be as accurate as is humanly possible when dealing with any issue, I find your following statement confusing and wanting in accuracy and clarity:

"In 1881 the King James Revision committee met again, ostensibly to check one more time for spelling and grammar errors. This, as you probably know, is where the infamous Dr. Hort and Dr. Westcott reinserted the Critical Text. The changes were so drastic that they had to rename their text the Revised Version."

FACT: The so-called "King James Revision Committee" actually was called the "Revising Body"; "The Revisionists"; or simply "The English Committee". It was never called, nor was it known, at the time, as the "King James Revision Committee", simply because the NAME "King James Bible" did NOT EXIST IN 1881! The name "King James Bible" did NOT come into vogue until the late 1930's (no one seems to know exactly WHEN the Publishers of Bibles {$$$} CHANGED the NAME from "The Holy Bible"!)

FACT: "The English Committee". had been authorized to "revise" the "Authorized Version" (i.e. The Holy Bible) by the Southern Convocation of the Anglican Church (the whole of the Anglican Church did not authorize a Revision of The Holy Bible - much less authorize the production of a NEW VERSION (the English Revised Version i.e. the "RV") of the Holy Bible.

FACT: From June, 1870 up to 1881 (when the Revised Version was first published) Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort (who had previously worked together {secretly} for about 20 years producing their own "revised' Greek Text) had been secretly bringing in their own "revised" Greek Text into the "Revisers" committee meetings (in place of the "Textus Receptus") and were subtilely continually influencing the "Revisers" to abandon the "Textus Receptus" (as the basis for the New Testament in English) and instead USE their own "revised" Greek Text in its place.

You said:

"In 1881 the King James Revision commitee met again, ostensibly to check one more time for spelling and grammar errors. This, as you probably know, is where the infamous Dr. Hort and Dr. Westcott reinserted the Critical Text."

FACT: Westcott & Hort did NOT just "reinsert the Critical Text" at that ONE MEETING! The FACT is that Westcott and Hort had been subtilely doing their "dirty work" (displacing the Textus Receptus with their own corrupt Greek Text ) for over ten years (the entire time that the "Revisers" met) - NOT just one last meeting in 1881!

You said:

"I am not tyring to steal anyone's faith. I am not trying to obfuscate on the issues. But this information that I just gave you is worth looking at and pondering over. If you choose not to even consider it. Than your faith is not based on truth. I don't mean to be contentious, but that is how I see it. I want an honest answer to the facts. I believe that the men who originated the critical text will face the fires of hell for taking out words that God intended us to have. I believe the NIV is blasphemous in its wrenching of the truth. But I also believe that truth can stand scrutiny."

I wouldn't worry about "stealing the faith" of a genuine Bible believer on this Forum, especially since you will not answer a simple question put to you by another brother in Christ on this Forum, and ignore the comments made by others (myself included) in regards to the issue of translating The Holy BIBLE {A BOOK that you can hold in your hands} into other languages.

Your statement:

"I am not trying to steal anyone's faith. I am not trying to obfuscate on the issues. But this information that I just gave you is worth looking at and pondering over. If you choose not to even consider it. Than your faith is not based on truth."

My faith is based on "TRUTH" - BIBLE TRUTH [John 17:17] Did you think that you can come onto a AV1611 Forum and make statements that are inaccurate and misinformed, without someone calling it to your attention? I looked at the "information" you just gave us back in 1968. I not only "pondered over it" and "considered it"; I studied the issue in great depth. Some of us have spent a whole lot of time studying this issue (speaking for myself - between 1968 through 1988 I spent a minimum of 12,000 to 15,00 hours studying the Bible "issue"; and when it comes to this issue, there are several men on this Forum that can make "mincemeat" out of me). We aren't a bunch of wild-eyed KJBO FANATICS - spouting off about matters that we know nothing about!

As you have said: "I don't mean to be contentious, but that is how I see it. I want an honest answer to the facts." Well, I too “don't mean to be contentious”; and, I too "want an honest answer to the facts". As a matter of fact - "I'm a "stickler" for FACTS that can be verified; and my comments may seem "picayune" to you or some others on the Forum, but I want to know why it is that when Christians make certain claims or statements that cannot be proven, or shown NOT to be true or factual, WHY is it that many Christians EXCUSE misstatements, error, or outright lies - as if the truth about an issue does not matter?

My advise to you is - make sure of your "FACTS" before you make statements; otherwise people will not take you very seriously, when some of the statements that you make can be shown to be in error.

The work that you are doing is to be commended - IF you are using The Holy BIBLE as the FINAL AUTHORITY in your translating work; If you aren't using the King James Bible as your "exemplar" (i.e. Foundation), then I, for one, cannot commend you for anything. The Holy Bible {A BOOK that you can hold in your hands} says:

Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

If ALL God’s works “are done in truth” – shouldn’t ALL our works “be done in truth" also?