Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Haifley
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.
|
And now we have it. A person who claims to stand for the King James Version speaking against certainty and trust in that version (at least, that is the implication from the above quoted statement).
First of all, no English Bible is identical to Erasmus, after all, there are (at least) five different Erasmus editions. What we find, notably with the KJB, is that it gathers from a variety of sources.
We are then told that there are five different revisions of the 1611. Actually, there are scores of minor revisions, several major ones, and some which do not count.
Next, we are told the completely unfactual statement, that the 1762 Edition is used today. It is not. Just look at the following links:
http://www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm
http://www.bibleprotector.com/editions.htm
Then we are told that the only spelling and grammar has been altered. Of course, this cannot be all that was changed, since there were obvious printer's errors in 1611 which also needed correction.
Furthermore, we are told that there are only 3 differences between the Oxford and the Cambridge. In fact there are scores of differences, if you look at the above links, you will see that.
And so we come to that question:
Which one is exactly perfect?
This is the same question the anti-KJBO people ask. The answer is clear and simple. Just read these booklets:
http://www.bibleprotector.com/THE_FI...AMES_BIBLE.pdf
http://www.bibleprotector.com/God's_...ames_Bible.pdf
Finally, the editorial work on the KJB was nothing like the reason behind the RV committee, and the RV work was just an accelerated form of the kind of bad revisionary editions made by Webster, the ABS, Scrivener (or Norton). In the case of the RV, the underlying text was drastically altered, but it is just as bad to change words like "bewray" into "betray", etc.
P.S. What is the 1615 Edition?