Originally Posted by MDOC

I'm not a humanist, but there's the opposite side of this spectrum: the Word has become the idol; the Word is worshipped instead of the creator who spoke it. That's why they are so bound to this kind of flakiness.

You can't know the Creator without His written Word.

Connie, we don't NEED an update of the KJV - we have the tools to study the KJV that we already have. It just means some work - that's why we need to be diligent in studying it out.

Originally Posted by jerry

You can't know the Creator without His written Word.

I'm not disputing that now, but how then did Abraham know the Creator if he didn't have the written Word? He did it by faith.

Faith means believing what God said. Today He speaks to us through His Word. If anyone thinks He is appearing to them and speaking audibly to them, they are deceived.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Well, I was glad to catch those words “The end” by Sophro... Yet, I might use this opportunity to explain a few things to those who wish to be drawn from the milk.

I would call the so-called updating of a word in the KJB a corruption now. Notice the word “now”. I said, “any change, so much as of 'sith' to 'since' now is an act of corruption and error.”

Sith is not just another spelling of since. In fact, they are two different words with two different meanings. While the meanings are similar, they are not identical.

First, there is no difference between now and then with respect to this matter: If it is wrong to update the spellings of words in the KJV now, then it always has been, which means we must all go back to reading the 1611 with euen and voyces. There is no rational, logical, nor theological reason to claim that it was ok to update voyces to voices back in the 1700s but now it is a corruption to update sith to since.

Secondly, sith and since are not two different words. Their meanings are the same, and they are in fact spelling variants. And even if sith had some meaning other than since, in the one passage of the KJV that uses sith (Ezek 35:6) it is clearly used in the sense of since.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

We of course recognise that the King James Bible was not made by inspiration, and have no problem in seeing that various words appear to have changed since 1611, as there has been a standardisation of the language after all. The problem is in any unauthorised, untraditional, unbelieving, neo-modern, departing-from-truth style changes which could (and do) occur.

I understand being upset with people changing all the thee's and ye's to just be you, and making other unnecessary changes. If you thought I was in favor of such, you were mistaken. But is sith to since the same as thee to you? No. Because sith and since mean the same thing. It would be like changing to doughnut to donut.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Actually, “divers” and “diverse” are two different word forms. Both appear in the KJB. The same with “throughly” and “thoroughly”.

You ultra wacko way out there KJVOs always make that stupid claim but refuse to back it up. If they are different words, then explain the difference in meaning genius. You can't because it doesn't exist. Any dictionary you look at is going to say something like "Middle English; see diverse" and "adv. Archaic Thoroughly."

They are the exact same word and the meanings are exactly the same. The only difference is that in Elizabethan English the silent e at the end was not needed to preserve the pure s sound from degrading into a z. They pronounced divers as diverse. But we today need the silent e at the end to preserve that pure s sound, because without it we pronounce divers as diverz. Its just a spelling difference. They are the same word. And if you knew anything about Elizabethan pronunciation you would know what I am talking about with the silent e.

And on the other, gradually over time a o was added after the h in "throughly" changing the spelling. Regular KJVOs (like me) are sick of you wacko lunatics making words like this out to be separate words and trying to claim that they have different meanings that only you can tell us because you are the gnostics who received this secret tradition from the 32 aeons. Well, initiate us then, genius--what's the difference between “throughly” and “thoroughly”? Silence, then crickets.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

I read the accusation that we “insist on some non-existent Cambridge perfect text that is undefinable...”

That is complete ignorance. Not only was the Pure Cambridge Edition printed millions of times in the twentieth century, but I have listed its contents in detail, and provided exact electronic copies of it. How could that be “non existent”?

Because every lunatic claims to have the pure Cambridge edition and each and every one of them spells some word different from the other. Some have too many sith's and some too many since's. Some hocked and some houghed.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Of course "only the original autographs were inspired". What kind of accusation is that? That’s like saying, “You believe the Bible!”

I didn't say the original autographs only were inspired. I am a KJVO, but not a lunatic one like you. You are the one who says only the original KJV autographs were inspired and only the non-existent pure Cambridge text.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Connie

I agree new converts can cope with the King James as we do,

Wow. All these years I have been believing and cherishing my Bible, when I should have been coping with it!

Now I am sure you're going to say that you didn't actually mean we "cope" with our Bible...

Originally Posted by MDOC

"Study to divide the word of truth?" That's not the ultimate purpose of studying the word. The purpose is to do it.

It is true that the ultimate purpose of studying is to do the word, but you are ignoring the very verse you are writing about. Why go all the way back to Ecclesiastes when you can look at this verse itself 2 Tim 2:15 "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Study to do what? Show thyself approved. Approved in what way? Being a workman that has no need of being ashamed? Why not? Because he rightly divides the word of God. So, in this verse, rightly dividing the word is the purpose of the studying, which (BTW) makes your argument that study is a wrong translation very funny. First, study still has both senses today (1) be diligent and (2) read, compare, whatever, so it is silly to say that study is wrong. Secondly, because it still contains both senses it is preferable to "be diligent" because "be diligent" is just the translational suggestion of those who try and claim that study in the sense of reading is unnecessary. Third, Paul gave a similar instruction to timothy in the first letter, 1 Tim 4:13 "Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." These are basically parallel passages, Paul's exhortation to Timothy to study to show himself approved as one who rightly divides the word and his exhortation to have him "give attendance" to reading, etc. these are the same thing.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by sophronismos

I didn't say the original autographs only were inspired. I am a KJVO, but not a lunatic one like you. You are the one who says only the original KJV autographs were inspired and only the non-existent pure Cambridge text.

Why do people, when presented with Matthew's position, tend to make up entirely false positions and attribute them to him?

You have clearly not researched Matthew's position well -- as I understand his position, he believes that even if we had access to the original penned KJV transcripts that they would not be useful in determining the purest presentation of the KJV.

I can fully understand disagreeing with Matthew that there exists a completely perfect presentation of the KJV, but to call him a lunatic for believing literally that no jot or tittle will pass speaks volumes of his accusers. That kind of faith is not lunacy.

Originally Posted by Diligent

Wow. All these years I have been believing and cherishing my Bible, when I should have been coping with it!

Now I am sure you're going to say that you didn't actually mean we "cope" with our Bible...

Come off it. In the beginning I'm sure you did "cope" with it, especially if you were young. This is analogous to Heb 4:13 ("with whom we have to do").

Originally Posted by sophronismos

Study to do what? Show thyself approved. Approved in what way? Being a workman that has no need of being ashamed? Why not? Because he rightly divides the word of God. So, in this verse, rightly dividing the word is the purpose of the studying, which (BTW) makes your argument that study is a wrong translation very funny.

These are stepping stones to being diligent. Then you do the word. Get it? You don't just study and study, and then more study. It's not enough to merely divide up the word. Read, if you have it, the note in the aforementioned verse in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge.

First, study still has both senses today (1) be diligent and (2) read, compare, whatever, so it is silly to say that study is wrong.

I didn't say it was wrong. I said is not an accurate translation. "Study" is right as an inclusive part of diligence. That's why diligence is a superlative for "Study".

Originally Posted by Diligent

Why do people, when presented with Matthew's position, tend to make up entirely false positions and attribute them to him?

You have clearly not researched Matthew's position well -- as I understand his position, he believes that even if we had access to the original penned KJV transcripts that they would not be useful in determining the purest presentation of the KJV.

I can fully understand disagreeing with Matthew that there exists a completely perfect presentation of the KJV, but to call him a lunatic for believing literally that no jot or tittle will pass speaks volumes of his accusers. That kind of faith is not lunacy.

What is lunacy is saying that spelling variations in English amount to jots and tittles passing when the exact same meaning is preserved and depends on the exact same jots and tittles in Hebrew and Greek (which is where jots and tittles are). And furthermore what is lunacy is allowing for an updating of euen to even and voyces to vioces, and euen of diuers to divers but not by any means of divers to diverse or sith to since! And I never said there is no perfect presentation of the KJV. What I am saying is that spelling variations that do not effect the meaning are not imperfections. If someone were to change "thee" to "you" in Luke 22:32, that would be an imperfection. But what if someone changed "throughly" to "thoroughly" in Mat 3:12 that is not a problem nor imperfection at all. In fact, one KJV I use all the time on my PC says "thoroughly" there, but another that I use on my Pocket PC says "throughly" and one little paperback KJV (full Bible) that I carry to church a lot says "thoroughly" and yet another one, a New Testament only KJV with the Spanish Reina-Valera in parallel says "throughly." That doesn't bother me at all, because I know that "throughly" and "thoroughly" mean the same thing. What does bother me, and greatly so, is people claiming that they mean different things, just so they can overthrow the faith of those who didn't buy their KJV from them (or who didn't print out their KJV from their website and bind it together themselves).