Is YOUR KJV Preserved From Error?

Izdaari · #11 27th October 2009, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Vince53

For those of you who don't understand what's going on:

1) My parallel Spanish/KJV says "spirit"
2) My New Scofield says "Spirit"
3) My Hyles-Anderson KJV says "Spirit"
4) My Thompson Chain Reference Bible says "Spirit"
5) My 1901 KJV (Bought it at a junk shop; leather-bound, great buy for $1) says "spirit"
6) The 1611 KJV Online says "spirit"
7) The University of Virginia Online Text Center KJV says "Spirit"
8) The 1611 KJV Online from Stewarton Bible School in Scotland says "Spirit"
9) The AV1611 King James Bible Page says "Spirit"
10) The Dewey Library online facsimile of the original 1611 KJV says "Spirit

Alrighty. So which do you say is the right answer, and why is it important?

Vince53 · #12 27th October 2009, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Izdaari

Alrighty. So which do you say is the right answer, and why is it important?

Well, there's a problem answering your question. The first KJV, printed in 1611, had an error when it referred to Ruth as "he." The second edition, also printed in 1611, and designed to be exactly identical to the first edition in every other respect, corrected the error.

But the 1611 KJV was a "folio," meaning that each page was printed separately, and they were not designed to be bound together into a book. Different printers printed different pages, and there are some contradictions. The British Museum and the Royal College of Scotland each set out to assemble a complete 1611 KJV, and they both succeeded. Unfortunately, the two have slight contradictions. We don't know which pages were from which edition or which printer, and well, uhm...

The original King James Version has disappeared, and we cannot be sure of the text.

Izdaari · #13 27th October 2009, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Vince53

Well, there's a problem answering your question. The first KJV, printed in 1611, had an error when it referred to Ruth as "he." The second edition, also printed in 1611, and designed to be exactly identical to the first edition in every other respect, corrected the error.

But the 1611 KJV was a "folio," meaning that each page was printed separately, and they were not designed to be bound together into a book. Different printers printed different pages, and there are some contradictions. The British Museum and the Royal College of Scotland each set out to assemble a complete 1611 KJV, and they both succeeded. Unfortunately, the two have slight contradictions. We don't know which pages were from which edition or which printer, and well, uhm...

The original King James Version has disappeared, and we cannot be sure of the text.

Hmm, interesting. It's a good thing I'm not a KJVO person, or I'd be concerned!

Vince53 · #14 27th October 2009, 05:29 PM

Actually, most of my spiritual growth had come from the KJV. But it does have mistakes, the original has disappeared, and people today are using the 1769 KJV (or some revision of the 1769 KJV) which is not identical to the 1611 KJV.

So why has God blessed the KJV so much? He isn't saying, but the KJV is a TRANSLATION of the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Texts, which are the inspired and preserved Word of God.

Faith.Man · #15 29th October 2009, 11:25 PM

What's the point? If you look at the copyright page in any modern translation you're going to see multiple years cited. That being said, I do like the NASB for accuracy, and the NIV for readability. For me, the ESV and HCSB are both good compromises. There's a new translation called the Ancient Roots Bible. Anybody know anything about this translation and it's scholarship?

Vince53 · #16 30th October 2009, 12:14 PM

There are actually two points, although they overlap.

Many Godly Christians have been deceived into believing that the King James Version IS the Word of God, and it is sinful to use any other translation. One of the many problems with this error is that there is more than one KJV.

The other point is that using a GOOD modern translation opens up the meaning of the Word of God more clearly. It is not a sin, and there is no Biblical authority for preaching that it is a sin, to use another translation.

Vince53 · #17 4th November 2009, 10:41 AM

Jeremiah 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ????? had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

Who set their servants at liberty?

"ye"
New Scofield Reference Bible
Crusade Bible Publishers 1973
Hyles-Anderson Edition
Cambridge Edition 1900

"he"
Thompson Chain Reference Bible
World Syndicate Edition 1901
Holman Bible Publishers 1988

According to the Hebrew, “ye” is correct.

Hentenza · #18 4th November 2009, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Vince53

So why has God blessed the KJV so much? He isn't saying, but the KJV is a TRANSLATION of the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Texts, which are the inspired and preserved Word of God.

Are the Masoretic and Greek Received texts the original autographs?

Vince53 · #19 4th November 2009, 07:48 PM

Good to hear from you, Hentenza. The original Word of God is in Heaven.

There are approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament or parts of the New Testament. There isn't an exact number, because some are lengthy portions that are part of something else, and some are recent enough that some scholars do not consider them to be New Testament manuscripts.

All but 25 (99.5%) are either:

The Received Text
The Received Text with spelling errors (by far the most common)
The Received Text with more modern Greek words added, that have the same meaning as the original words. This happens with later manuscripts, after the Greek language had changed over time.

Now, as to the other 1/2%:

Most of their content is the Received Text. They have many "shortenings." For instance, "Lord Jesus Christ" will be shortened to "Christ." However, these 25 manuscripts do it repeatedly. In my OPINION, which could be wrong, they were trying to save paper or parchment, which were both scarce and expensive.

It is clear that God has kept His promise to preserve His Word, the Received Text, which has never died out, and has never come close to dying out.

Hentenza · #20 4th November 2009, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by Vince53

Good to hear from you, Hentenza. The original Word of God is in Heaven.

There are approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament or parts of the New Testament. There isn't an exact number, because some are lengthy portions that are part of something else, and some are recent enough that some scholars do not consider them to be New Testament manuscripts.

All but 25 (99.5%) are either:

The Received Text
The Received Text with spelling errors (by far the most common)
The Received Text with more modern Greek words added, that have the same meaning as the original words. This happens with later manuscripts, after the Greek language had changed over time.

Now, as to the other 1/2%:

Most of their content is the Received Text. They have many "shortenings." For instance, "Lord Jesus Christ" will be shortened to "Christ." However, these 25 manuscripts do it repeatedly. In my OPINION, which could be wrong, they were trying to save paper or parchment, which were both scarce and expensive.

It is clear that God has kept His promise to preserve His Word, the Received Text, which has never died out, and has never come close to dying out.

Thanks brother. I know the spiel but wanted to make sure you did.