Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 05-02-2008, 08:04 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

The Version and Translation made in 1611 is the right one. There is no dispute between the 1611 and 1769 Editions on text or translation, since they both agree. Therefore it is entirely proper to stand for the "1611" Version.

Things like changing the 1611 "he" at Ruth 3:15 to the 1611 "she", or the 1611 "seek good" at Psalm 69:32 to the 1629 "seek God", or having the 1629 "Amen" at the end of Ephesians all never constitute either an underlying text or translation change. There are no actual changes to Scripture, or actual changes in the version-text and/or the translation of the King James Bible from 1611 to the Pure Cambridge Edition. All we can witness is the purification in correcting typographical errors, standardisation of the language and other regularisation. There are unauthorised editions which do corrupt the King James Bible, but they do not form part of the traditional lineage, such as, Webster, 1850s American Revision, Scrivener and Norton. These editions are not commonly used, and are generally considered abnormal.

Scrivener's relatively recent flawed Greek text is of no consequence.
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #82  
Old 05-02-2008, 01:57 PM
sophronismos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
The Version and Translation made in 1611 is the right one. There is no dispute between the 1611 and 1769 Editions on text or translation, since they both agree. Therefore it is entirely proper to stand for the "1611" Version. Things like changing the 1611 "he" at Ruth 3:15 to the 1611 "she", or the 1611 "seek good" at Psalm 69:32 to the 1629 "seek God", or having the 1629 "Amen" at the end of Ephesians all never constitute either an underlying text or translation change.
But you're the guy who say throughly and thoroughly are different words, and yet refuses to show wherein they differ because you are a liar who knows they do not differ but claims they do so he can make himself pope of the KJV and lord his gnostic claims over everyone's KJV. And you say veil and vail are different words and divers and diverse are different words. Well, suppose I want to get looney along with you and claim sope and soap are different words? You're the guy that says if my KJV says thoroughly rather than throughly then I'm a bible corrupter. And you are saying the 1611 and 1769 editions agree exactly? What about the innumerable spelling differences? And what about actual differences? You admit that the 1611 didn't have amen at the end of Ephesians. Now, when that amen was added, that was a change of the underlying text, since the text they followed in 1611 didn't have it (hence Scrivener's reconstruction lacks it) but when they edited the KJV using Stephanus 1550 (which has it) they added it in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
There are no actual changes to Scripture, or actual changes in the version-text and/or the translation of the King James Bible from 1611 to the Pure Cambridge Edition. All we can witness is the purification in correcting typographical errors, standardisation of the language and other regularisation.
You're one of those geniuses that blows a gasket over throughly vs thoroughly, and you're telling me that houghed vs hocked doesn't bother you? And you don't in your insanity view musick and music or ancle and ankle as separate words? If this was your true position, I WOULD REJOICE, but since you are lying, I lament that you think you can wiggle out from under the crushing weight of the truth. That truth being that you are the bible corrupter because you claim that unless my KJV says throughly rather than thoroughly and divers rather than diverse that it is not pure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
There are unauthorised editions which do corrupt the King James Bible, but they do not form part of the traditional lineage, such as, Webster, 1850s American Revision, Scrivener and Norton.
But who gets to authorize changes? Who gave the pure Cambridge bible correctors their authority? Any of these others can be viewed as equally authoritative! It all depends on your personal view. It is subjective, which is why you are wrong in claiming that you have some special gnostic insight and that anyone whose KJV doesn't contain the exact archaic spellings that you dictate is a corrupter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
Scrivener's relatively recent flawed Greek text is of no consequence.
It is a reconstruction of the text followed in the 1611. They didn't include amen at the end of Ephesians. Why? They chose to leave it out as did the Geneva and Bishops' Bibles. Why would all three of these old English Bibles leave it out? Because the text they were based on didn't have it. Scrivener's text that you make as a drop in a bucket or the spittle on one of your tongue spots is important in understanding the 1611 translation process. But we don't use the 1611! We use the 1769, and that's the point. You use a 1900 KJV, not even the 1769, and yet you are claiming to use the 1611.

Last edited by sophronismos; 05-02-2008 at 02:01 PM.
  #83  
Old 05-02-2008, 02:08 PM
sophronismos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From Biblecorrector's website:
Quote:
The Pure Cambridge Edition (first published circa 1900) is the product of the process of textual purification that has occurred since 1611 when the Authorized Version was completed, and has been used (often unwittingly) as the received text for many decades. Millions of copies conformed to this edition were issued by Bible and missionary societies in the twentieth century. This text stands in contrast to all other editions (especially newly edited and modernised ones). The providentially established and correct text has, among other things, “Geba” not “Gaba” at Ezra 2:26.
But the 1611 itself says "Gaba" doesn't it? So then, if any edition says Geba rather than Gaba, it is not by preserving what the 1611 says, but by going back again to the Hebrew and re-transliterating! Who gave your 1900 bible correctors the authority to do that?
  #84  
Old 05-02-2008, 03:36 PM
MDOC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophronismos View Post
From Biblecorrector's website:


But the 1611 itself says "Gaba" doesn't it? So then, if any edition says Geba rather than Gaba, it is not by preserving what the 1611 says, but by going back again to the Hebrew and re-transliterating! Who gave your 1900 bible correctors the authority to do that?
Take a look at Neh 7:30. Name spellings are not really important.

Last edited by MDOC; 05-02-2008 at 03:40 PM.
  #85  
Old 05-02-2008, 03:49 PM
Brother Tim's Avatar
Brother Tim Brother Tim is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 864
Default

Sophronismos,
I am asking you kindly to refrain from your personal attacks on Matthew Verschuur. If you do not agree with his position, back up your argument with Scripture and wisdom. Why do you stoop to name-calling another brother and accusing him of being a deliberate liar. Who has given you that authority? Your viciousness and personal attack speaks badly of your character. Or does it expose the truth?
  #86  
Old 05-02-2008, 06:23 PM
MDOC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophronismos View Post
Well, suppose I want to get looney along with you and claim sope and soap are different words?
Considering some thinly vieled words you'd used in this forum, I'd say it's time you eat some sope (oops, I mean soap).
  #87  
Old 05-02-2008, 11:30 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
Name spellings are not really important.
Well, not as far as meaning is not changed, but the issue at stake is the very jots and tittles of the Scripture. While "Geba" or "Gaba" obviously are the same place, no one is going to have a different doctrine if they believed "Gaba" in 1611 or 1769. However, if we say that these things do not matter, then other things more important can be excused, and eventually (in the extreme) we would accept "Yahweh" over "Jehovah".
  #88  
Old 05-03-2008, 09:39 AM
MDOC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
Well, not as far as meaning is not changed, but the issue at stake is the very jots and tittles of the Scripture. While "Geba" or "Gaba" obviously are the same place, no one is going to have a different doctrine if they believed "Gaba" in 1611 or 1769. However, if we say that these things do not matter, then other things more important can be excused, and eventually (in the extreme) we would accept "Yahweh" over "Jehovah".
Mat 5:17-20
(17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
(18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
(19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(20) For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


Well, the jot (Greek, iota) and tittle (keraia) refer to Hebrew language usage of letters and vowels, respectively (in fact, the Greek "iota" is of Hebrew origin). Change one of them, and you change the the OT context.

It's rather interesting that you bring "Yahweh" into this context. There's a long history spanning many centuries as to how "Yahweh" became "Jehovah." It is exactly this reason that name spellings aren't important, although not directly related as to the extent of the change in the name of God.

Originally, the Hebrew language didn't have "tittles," i.e., no vowels; the Hebrew language was a consonantal language. Vowels were spoken, but not written. The tittles were added long after the time of Christ, not before--invented by the Massoretic scribes about the latter half of the first millennium A.D. to augment the Hebrew language with a system of vowels.

This means the reference to the "jot" and "tittle" is to the "law and prophets" contained in the OT, not the written OT itself. In the light of the ref's immediate context, this makes perfect sense.

Do you understand the import of what I'm saying here? It wipes out your basic premise regarding the underlying reason (or rationale) for "protecting" the KJV from "textual corruption." Instead,the direct application of this verse is to the fulfillment of prophecy, and that's the proper exegesis of the passages, even though verse 18 can be mechanically and physically applied to the Levites' upkeep of the OT during those days.

This would have the same analogy as the plate and cup being clean on the outside, but inwardly it is full of extortion, excess, ravening, and wickedness (Matt 23:25-26, Luke 11:39). Outside: textual purity. Inside: santification through the word.

Therefore, the issue at stake is not textual preservation. Although the Levites first were given the oracles of God for its upkeep, it's God's prerogative to preserve it because He lives forever.
  #89  
Old 05-03-2008, 11:21 AM
jerry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MDOC, you have some skewed information. There is a lot of proof that the OT texts had vowels - John Gill has an excellent dissertation on this. As far as Yahweh goes, that was never God's name - that was a name that higher critics took and applied to the Lord within the last couple of hundred years. If you cared you could do a search for that name on these boards, and find links to articles on the origin of this name.
  #90  
Old 05-03-2008, 12:15 PM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Default

Hi Folks,

I was going to spend a little time discussing Scrivener and 1611 KJB and 1769 KJB (a fascinating discussion) but I do want to simply note a false accusation, similar to those that seem to be the main modus operandi of soph against Matthew. Integrity first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
2) F.H.A. Scrivener approached the text with much confusion personally. Matthew has discussed this some, with emphasis properly on the Revision, I will simply mention that Scrivener did not consider Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma as scripture, and thus was involved in the direct attack on God's word. Even if in many other places he defended the Traditional Text against corruptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophronismos
.. your objection here is a lie. Now, what you say may be true in one sense, but it is a lie in another because you are implying that Scrivener's "The Greek text underlying the Authorised Version of 1611" leaves out Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma
However I was making no such implication. This is an informed forum and it never even remotely entered my mind that what I wrote above would be interpreted in that way, yet you falsely jump to accuse me of lying. I even contextualized my discussion by pointing out the analogy with the fact that he worked with the Revision, albeit with much known disapproval. And that his Greek text we are discussing was a reversed-engineered KJB, which of course would include Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma.

So my point was very sound. F. H. A. Scrivener did not approach the King James Bible with eyes of faith, as the pure word of God, and this would affect his work in a number of ways (such as discussed in point #1). And any King James Bible believer should of necessity be very cautious with the analysis conclusions of men like Scrivener or Norton's edition. (Incidentally, I have a Zondervan Scrivener-based KJV Study Bible that I find helpful for study issues, purchased a few years back.)

You may disagree with this point, in the sense that you do not think that KJB belief and acceptance is relevant in the scholarly work. In a similar way that modern textcrits say that belief in the Bible is not relevant to 'reconstructing' the Bible text. That is your right, and deficient as I might view such a view, I would never accuse you of lying for so stating.

Soph, this forum operates on a very high level scholastically and, more importantly, respectfully. That is one reason we post here. You likely have the scholastic smarts to keep up with the forum, and let iron sharpeneth iron, however you would do well to examine your respectfulness quotient. False and political accusations of lying are the bane of any discussion forum. The rest is up to the mod.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Last edited by Steven Avery; 05-03-2008 at 12:18 PM.
 

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 11:36 PM.

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