Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-02-2008, 02:31 PM
sophronismos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bibleprotector's pure Cambridge, a hoax

Bibleprotector's pure Cambridge is a hoax. Go directly to 1st John 2:23 of his pure Cambridge, and what do you see? Exactly the below, the italics are his, not mine.

Quote:
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the
Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father
also.
Now, the 1611 doesn't put brackets around the "but." How'd Bibleprotector's bible correctors in circa 1900 arrive at that contraption? By comparison to the Greek text--but what Greek text?????????????? Stephanus, SCRIVENER? Nestle-Aland?????? It can't be Stephanus, because Stephanus leaves out all the bracketed words. Scrivener has all the bracketed words but "but" so it is probably Scrivener's text they were looking at.

Now, I have a couple of modern KJVs that read as follows:

Quote:
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the
Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father
also.
Parenthesis rather than brackets. But the 1611 had no parenthesis and no brackets, but the 1611 read as:
Quote:
Whosoeuer denieth the Sonne, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne, hath the Father also.
Isn't Bibleprotector's claim that no Greek text is worth anything and the 1611 was perfect and how dare anyone look at a Greek text? Yet his revisers bracketed the word "but" that the 1611 didn't bracket and they did so on the basis of some Greek text. Is the argument, Biblecorrector, that the pure Cambridge is more pure than the 1611 because your revisers took some Greek text and bracketed things out, or is your claim that the pure Cambridge is pure because it follows the 1611? If the latter, your claim is proven false. If the former, then you ought to agree that a pure translation of the TR can be made in modern English (although it hasn't happened yet).

Now, most KJVOs would say that since the 1611 doesn't bracket the word "but" then the word "but" must have existed in the Greek text they used, and would accuse Scrivener of making a mistake in not including the word "but." Of course, Scivener could only include words he found in some printed edition of the Greek text that the KJV translators would have had before them, and we must conclude none of these had "but" or Scrivener would have included it. But some KJVOs (perhaps Will Kenny?) would say that not only did the KJV translators have printed editions like Stephanus and Beza and Erasmus and Colineaus, etc. before them but maybe they had their own manuscripts and one of these contained the word "but." If then Bibleprotector's vaunted revisers bracketed the word "but" because Scrivener left it out in his reconstruction, but in reality the KJV translators included the word "but" unbracketed in 1611 because they possessed a manuscript that had it, then how is the pure Cambridge so pure? It is no different from any other 1769 KJV, such as the one I am looking at right now that has "but" in parenthesis. Another printing I have from Zondervan has brackets just like this "pure Cambridge." But the 1611 has no brackets. How comes this, Biblecorrector? Why did your men put brackets there?

Last edited by sophronismos; 05-02-2008 at 02:37 PM.
  #2  
Old 05-02-2008, 02:41 PM
sophronismos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Additional question: If I were to unitalicize these words, would I be a bible corrector?

Even the modern version include these words, so I guess the controversy over them is over. The NASB says "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also." And the NRSV "No one who denies the Son has the Father; everyone who confesses the Son has the Father also." And the NIV "No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also."

So, does it make sense to have them still italicized? Just a question.
  #3  
Old 05-02-2008, 04:38 PM
MDOC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophronismos View Post
So, does it make sense to have them still italicized? Just a question.
According to the history of your posts (not just today's), it has been more than a question. "Just an accusation" would be more accurate.
  #4  
Old 05-02-2008, 04:30 PM
Brother Tim's Avatar
Brother Tim Brother Tim is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 864
Default

Sir, your accusations have no basis. I suggest that you spend your time more wisely and trace the history of your claim. Many other KJV Bibles besides the PCE, as well the Bishop's Bible, one of the primary sources used by the 1611 translators, contain the very punctuation that you claim Redpath "corrected" in 1900. Matthew never makes the claim that the PCE steps back in time, skipping revisions made after the original 1611, to return to the original markings. The opposite is in fact the truth. The c.1900 edition is the seventh in line.

Proverbs 3:30 Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm.
  #5  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:29 PM
Gord's Avatar
Gord Gord is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Posts: 171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophronismos View Post
Bibleprotector's pure Cambridge is a hoax. Go directly to 1st John 2:23 of his pure Cambridge, and what do you see? Exactly the below, the italics are his, not mine.
Quote:
Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Have we no yet found better ways to praise our Lord and Saviour.???
  #6  
Old 05-03-2008, 06:53 AM
MDOC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord View Post
Have we not yet found better ways to praise our Lord and Saviour.???
Ding ding ding...

Good point...

ding!
  #7  
Old 05-03-2008, 12:03 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the
Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father
also.
This is direct quote, with italics, of King James Bibles from the early 1800s. This was the rendering 100 years before the Pure Cambridge Edition existed. This is enough to explode everything that is accused in the first post of this thread.

Even Brother Tim points out,

Quote:
Many other KJV Bibles besides the PCE ... contain the very punctuation
That includes Oxford Editions.

Last edited by bibleprotector; 05-03-2008 at 12:07 AM.
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com