- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,507
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
The major problem with such logic, is the claim that no one had a pure word of God during all the centuries
Again, you misunderstand me, my friend. I am claiming that the pure Word of God existed throughout all of time but it existed in different forms. Here is a graphic I created to help you see where I am coming from.
Side Note:
Although, the early church continued on beyond the giving of Revelation to John, when I speak of the early church in the graphic above, I am referring to the early apostles while Scripture was being formed. God’s Word is forever settled in Heaven. So God knew of the canon of Scripture long before it was completed with Revelation.
In between the time of the close of the canon of Scripture (with the writing of the scroll of Revelation), and before the Holy Bible was given to the world in English in it’s pure form with the KJB 1900 Cambridge Edition, the Word of God perfectly existed in scattered Textus Receptus Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (scrolls).
To help give you a feel for the time period right after Revelation and yet long before the KJB was settled in 1900 later in the future, check out the Christian movie called:
Polycarp:
You said:Why was the Old Testament never purified?
Sometimes God does things that are new (even though He already prophesied about those new things). The Incarnation was New at the time it happened. It was a unique event in history with the Living Eternal Word being made flesh. Seeing there is a symbiotic relationship between the Living Word and the Communicated Word (Check out the 41 verses in this thread here), it makes sense that if the entrance of the Living Word was unique, then there should be a special unique entrance for the final Communicated God’s Word (i.e. the Holy Bible). For the Old Testament alone was not God’s final words to man.
You said:Why is God so ineffective that it took seven tries to finally get the Bible just right?
“Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (1 Corinthians 1:25).
Why didn’t God just send Jesus right away to die for our sins soon after Adam and Eve died spiritually?
Granted, from God’s perspective, the Lamb was slain since the foundation of the world.
But our lack of understanding or logical thinking is not always in line with God’s way of thinking.
Now, that said, God could have brought about a perfect Bible right away if He wanted to, but that would kind of negate the whole faith thing that Jesus was looking for. Remember, Jesus told Thomas, “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” (John 20:29).
God wants you to believe His Word by faith in Psalms 12:6-7 in that His words are purified seven times.
But most who are Modern Scholarship Followers just believe the scholar in what they say by faith instead. However, God wants us to have faith in HIS WORD and not in scholars. For Jesus said, beware of the scribes (Luke 20:46).
You said:And what about the entire non-English speaking world? They don’t get to have a perfect bible?
Not all the countries of the world have the gospel message yet. Is it unfair that they don’t have the gospel now? Surely not. Besides…
The King James is available in other languages:
Textus Receptus in Spanish (RVG 2010):
https://www.amazon.com/Santa-Biblia-Rústica-Valera-Spanish/dp/0758907567/
King James Francais in French:
Bible King James Française | King James Française
Koning Jacobus Vertaling in Dutch:
http://www.koningjacobusvertaling.org/info_english.php
Bibelen Guds Ord in Norwegian:
http://www.hermon.no/netbibelen/
Thai King James Bible Version:
The Bible (พระคัมภีร์ไทย)
Korean King James Version:
https://www.amazon.com/Korean-English-Bible-Leather-Golden/dp/B005DPPENA/
Brazillian Portuguese (the BKJ):
Bíblia King James Fiel 1611
You said:There’s no such thing as a perfect translation, or an inspired inerrant translation
In the Bible: We can see a pattern of God preserving copies of His Word, and not the original autographs:
(a) Moses destroyed the original 10 Commandments on tablets of stone (the original autograph) (Exodus 32:19), and yet a copy was perfectly made to replace it (Exodus 34:1-4).
(b) King Jehoiakim burns the scroll of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:22-23), but God had Jeremiah make another copy (Jeremiah 36:27-28).
(c) Proverbs 25:1 says, “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.” (Proverbs 25:1).
(b) King Jehoiakim burns the scroll of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:22-23), but God had Jeremiah make another copy (Jeremiah 36:27-28).
(c) Proverbs 25:1 says, “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.” (Proverbs 25:1).
In the New Testament, Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch read from a manuscript of Isaiah.
“And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?” (Acts of the Apostles 8:30).
Although Scripture does not specifically say this was a copy of Isaiah, and not the original autograph of Isaiah, logic dictates that the most plausible explanation is that the Ethiopian eunuch had a copy of a manuscript of Isaiah (and not the original). For the odds of him just happening to have the original would seem highly unlikely.
Philip calls this copy of Isaiah he possessed as Scripture.
“Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” (Acts of the Apostles 8:35).
2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
So the copy of this Scripture was inspired by God.
So the belief of “OAO (Original Autograph Only) Proponent” that says that we need to look to the original autograph because it is perfect, and the copies are flawed and full of errors is unbiblical. Believers in God's Word can trust that God has preserved a copy of His Word for us today that is perfect (Which would be consistent in the way God operates involving the preservation of His Word). This then leads us to conclude that there must be a perfect Bible that we can find today.
You said:So enlighten us with a couple of examples of the editing done to the seventh revision that purified and perfected any doctrine, please.
Shalom
The Pure Cambridge Edition is the seventh major purification revision of the King James Bible.
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Psalm 12:6-7).
Just as there are seven recognised purifications of the Protestant English Bible, so there are seven major editions of the King James Bible which are in a succession of purification. With the English Bibles it began with Tyndale, and the text and translation was finalised in the King James Bible. With the editions, counting begins from the first one.
PURIFICATION ONE: The First 1611 Edition was the first printed representation of the King James Bible, which presented for the first time the gathering of all that went before it, from the other English translations, the original languages and other sources. However, this first edition suffered because of printers’ typographical errors.
In 1611 the language was not standardised, and certain amount of work was required to regularise the AV, which only took place at a later stage.
PURIFICATION TWO: The Second 1611 Edition was the second printed representation of the King James Bible, which corrected the first edition, lest any reading of the AV from the first should thought to be correct when it was a typographical error. However, this second edition, while a purification, also suffered because of printers’ typographical errors. This would lead to another problem: was a difference in the Second 1611 Edition a typographical error or a deliberate correction?
PURIFICATION THREE: The third major edition of the King James Bible, and the third purification took place in the 1613 Edition. This 1613 Edition resolved what was a typographical error in either of the two editions before it, though of course, the 1613 Edition made mistakes of its own. But with these three, already there had been much testimony as to what was the actual text of the King James Bible. When Oxford reprinted the First 1611 Edition in 1833, they made particular reference to differences among the First Edition, Second Edition and 1613 Edition.
Over the years, the London Printers made various runs of various sizes of Bibles, each edition with slight errors or variations.
PURIFICATION FOUR: In 1629, Cambridge University Press, by its power of “Cum Privilegio”, presented its own edition of the King James Bible. The first Cambridge Edition of 1629 was the product of a concerted revision which took place at Cambridge, taking into account the whole array of printed editions beforehand, and being a culminating work to begin a long history of the presentation of a much more typeset accurate text and authority in presentation. The beginnings of the standardisation of the language were first manifested in the 1629 Edition too. Thus, the fourth major edition in the succession of the purification of the King James Bible.
PURIFICATION FIVE: In 1638, by order of King Charles I, the King James Bible was revised once again at Cambridge. Two surviving translators are known to have taken part, as well as the learned Puritan, Joseph Mede. They also had recourse to the Translators’ Master Copy. This edition, which brought in more standardisation, and other careful corrections, became the standard edition upon which all Bible publishers began to use as the basis of the King James Bible. The 1638 Edition contained some misprints too.
With the advance of history and all the various factors that occurred, numerous King James Bible editions appeared over the years, some specialised with various marginal material. The Puritans accepted the 1638 Edition of the KJB. Oxford began printing Bibles as well. Bishop Lloyd’s revision of 1701 was so botched by the press that his edition did not make real impact. In the 1750s, there was a general movement toward the standardisation of the English language. Thomas Paris (sometimes wrongly attributed to F. S. Parris) edited the King James Bible at Cambridge in 1762. This grand revision was thwarted by many copies being burnt during a warehouse fire, and others were damaged by water when the fire was doused.
PURIFICATION SIX: In 1769, Blayney completed editing the King James Bible, and it was printed at Oxford. What Blayney discovered, in furthering Paris’ work, was that Paris had missed numerous things in his corrections. And so Blayney had the credit of standardising the King James Bible, which became the basis of all King James Bible editions afterward to the present time. This sixth major purification was concerned with standardising the language, and was concerned with making many corrections to various typographical errors that had appeared in the King James Bible over the years. It took into account various worthy editions which came before it.
However, the 1769 Edition was not final: one of the editions printed that year was more perfect than another, and various errata appeared. While London soon adopted the 1769 text, it required a minor edit in 1817 D’Oyly and Mant at Oxford, and the passing until about 1835 before Cambridge printed its Bibles based on the 1769 Edition. And Cambridge ensured that it did not reproduce the novelties of spelling that Oxford had always had. So the 1769 Edition was perpetuated through the reign of Queen Victoria, in the three Guardians, namely, the Oxford, London and Cambridge succession of editions. As time progressed, very slight adjustments were made in all their editions, and at times some sort of alignment occurred to bring a slight uniformity between Cambridge and Oxford.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, the idea that there should be some sort of revision of the King James Bible had gained momentum. Of course, “revision” meant different things to different people. Some thought that it would mean correcting a few errors and perhaps updating a few archaic words. Others thought about revising the underlying Textus Receptus. Others thought a bit more, and of course, history shows how far away the Revised Version really was from anything to do with the King James Bible.
Scrivener also, on the basis of a new theory, decided to edit the King James Bible supposing that the Second 1611 Edition had been printed first, and that the First 1611 Edition typographical errors were really were “corrections” of the Second, and by an unusual method he also revised spellings and so on, producing a “classical edition” like one would produce by textual criticism of Shakespeare. Scrivener’s edition was too different for the normal conservative or evangelical Christian, and although it was used in some commentaries, it was never taken as the normal Cambridge text.
Considering what outcry the Revised Version had caused, and that Scrivener’s Edition was being rejected by scholars such as W. Aldis Wright, Cambridge embarked on a quiet and very conservative revision.
PURIFICATION SEVEN: Around the year 1900, the scholarly and thoroughly anti-modernist H. A. Redpath (parson who moved to London, Septuagint concordance editor, Oxford lecturer, held a position in Swete’s Society of Sacred Study, wrote for the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and became examining chaplain to the Bishop of London) edited the King James Bible, adding the pronunciation scheme, and this was consequently printed at Cambridge and by William Collins in Scotland. This edition made various corrections to the 1769-following Cambridge Edition of the late Victorian Era, probably with reference to Scrivener’s work, but with consultation of other editions, most notably the First 1611 Edition. Numerous corrections included the spelling of names, for which the most inexactness had been allowed in the Bible, probably because of the complexity of them. Other corrections, which are defended to this day, were the restoration of “or” in Joshua 19:2, “whom ye” in Jeremiah 34:16 and “flieth” in Nahum 3:16.
It was on the basis of the general acceptance of the Cambridge Edition as the standard or superior presentation of the King James Bible among the host of editions that may have appeared or been contemporary with the modern King James Bible only movement, and with the further and exacting studies into the textual criticism of the Bible, including reference to (but not reliant upon) Norton’s studies, and with the advent of worldwide dissemination of King James Bible texts by the internet, and by the utilisation of the developments in word processing technology, and with providentially supplied factors and events and most importantly revelation from the Spirit, the Pure Cambridge Edition has been presented in its correct form, with complete reference to the existing extant historical printed editions of it, resulting in a standard text of the Pure Cambridge Edition without any variation and free from all particular accidental typographical errors.
Source used for the seven purifications of the King James Bible:
www.bibleprotector.com
Last edited:
Upvote
0