Thread: 1611 vs 1769
View Single Post
  #9  
Old 07-04-2009, 03:18 PM
Critical Thinking
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
... Thus I do not think we do ourselves a favor by denying those few verses where the text actually did change from 1611 to the PCE (or 1769 or what we use today and accept as 100% pure). ...
Steven's statement is the only real answer to the original inquiry. Every one else seems to not want to deal with the core issue. Let's take another look at the other responses again --
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel
I think 99.9% of the evidence he posted, is nothing more than bad 1611 spelling, and typo errors. ...
No, the list is NOT presenting a majority of orthographic issues. Your incorrect reply does not help. Try actually reading them carefully, looking past the archaic spelling. Do you now see some completely different words? Do you now see words in one version lacking in the other?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonybone2112
He himself is a liar Cody, he can't point to one "version" of the Bible he himself believes is perfect and inspired. I don't trust these people and their "differences" without actually seeing the texts myself, and it's a useless wild goose chase anyway over meaningless redundancies. ...
Interesting opinions, but none of it addresses young Cody's question. You tore the man down, but not his evidence. I have a 1611 reprint and have looked at these verses compared to a modern KJV and the differences are genuinely present. Don't be such a coward. Deal with the facts. If you won't, people will begin to distrust you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
... The list supplied by Beckman would be "significant" if they actually were changes in the text and translation of the KJB, but of course nobody can prove that. The fact is that these differences are mainly typographical errors in the first printing of the Bible, and in some cases, the standardisation of the language. They are not "significant" differences, because nothing actually was changed, just presentational issues remedied.
Perhaps nothing can be proved, but the differences (additional words, different words) are present in the 1611 text. For those that believe the 1611 was created perfect there is no such thing as an insignificant change. Again, these are NOT "mainly" accidental differences (G-o-d cannot be mispelled as t-h-e L-O-R-D). "Standardisation of the language" also known as "editorial regularisation" are nebulous and ambiguous terms. Its an escape to not deal with the question. C'mon, face the music. Get real, man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by magicref
If this is the way God worked the preservation of His Word, then there could be expected to be variations between the 1611 and 1769 versions, even with the "significant" variations mentioned above. The way we know that no significant changes have taken place since 1769 is simply the fact that (as far as I know) there have not been any proper or accepted changes since then.
You're just guessing, Doug. Circumstantial at best. A non-answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB
... I canít see how his selected examples disprove his point that they are not printing issues. Where has he proved that that is not the case? ...
When you read three additional words ("of the LORD" after "in the temple") do you really think it is just a "printing" issue? Well then, it just can't be proved either way. But it does exist. Why not deal with the issue and actually be helpful? Give the kid a substantial rebutal.