The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,888
2,274
U.S.A.
✟108,818.00
Faith
Baptist
Uh huh. Sure. You are claiming intellectual superiority because of the "resources" you have, as if the most accomplished men in the world did not have those resources. I won't be buying your work, sorry, and I won't be buying the NRSV either. It's like the NIV, full of lies.

In the early 1600’s, Bible scholars had available to them, even at the largest university libraries, less than .1% of the resources that I have in my personal library. Indeed, they did not even have available to them a good concordance—let alone a Greek grammar or lexicon! They had to make hundreds upon hundreds of guesses, and very many of those guesses are now known to have been wrong!
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟876,752.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Now since Joe is a bit reluctant, I downloaded my own copy from 1611 KING JAMES BIBLE: PURE CAMBRIDGE EDITION
over at JesusisSavior.com



Pure Cambridge Edition KJV:
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the
Son of God hath not life.


1611 KJV:
12 Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.

Those two are not the same Joe. And it is not just a spelling issue. The "Pure Cambridge Edition" adds the words "of God".
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
344
USA
✟3,191.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Now since Joe is a bit reluctant, I downloaded my own copy from 1611 KING JAMES BIBLE: PURE CAMBRIDGE EDITION
over at JesusisSavior.com



Pure Cambridge Edition KJV:
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the
Son of God hath not life.


1611 KJV:
12 Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.

Those two are not the same Joe. And it is not just a spelling issue. The "Pure Cambridge Edition" adds the words "of God".


You downloaded from jesus-is-savior.com but you are ignoring post 571 which is taken from that site.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟876,752.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
From Joe's post 571:

There is nothing wrong with the unedited Authorized 1611 King James Bible. It contains no errors. The standardization of English words does not mean that there are any errors in the original work.

Yet in fact the Pure Cambridge Edition and 1611 editions do not match in this reading.

Pure Cambridge Edition KJV:
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the
Son of God hath not life.


1611 KJV:
12 Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.

Those two are not the same Joe. And it is not just a spelling issue. The "Pure Cambridge Edition" adds the words "of God".
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟876,752.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
One of the translators of the KJV Bible was John Bois. He served on one of the committees translating a portion of the work, helped with another, and was one of the final review committee that looked over the whole work. He is believed to be the only translator to keep notes regarding the process.

In the book "Translating for King James" by Ward Allen he goes through some of the notes by Bois on individual texts.

One such text is I Peter 2:5

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. KJV

The question here is the translation of the word for "built up". The form of the word can indicate an imperative (command) or indicative (relating a reality, not a wish, command, etc.).

Bois's translated note on the verse (they interacted in Latin) reads:

"Be built up, or, ye are built up"; Beza and Andrew Downes accept it "imperatively"; others, "finitely."
Downes was one of the other people on the review committee. Beza here refers to the 1598 edition of the Greek New Testament in which Beza recorded his annotations.

Since the underlying Greek could be taken either way various translators before had translated it both ways, based on their take on the text.

Tyndale
and ye as lyvynge stones are made a spretuall housse and an holy presthode for to offer vp spretuall sacryfice acceptable to god by Iesus Christ.

Geneva
Yee also as liuely stones, bee made a spirituall house, an holy Priesthoode to offer vp spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ.

Bishops
And ye as lyuely stones, be you made a spirituall house, an holy priesthood, for to offer vp spirituall sacrifices, acceptable to God by Iesus Christe.

In the 1611 KJV they went with the majority of the revisers, but put the other possibility in the margin. As with other instances when the margin note was not just clarifying the sense but giving a different reading they introduce the margin note with "or".

attachment.php



This is an example of them placing two readings side by side rather than being locked into one, as they stated in the preface:

They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.

If the Holy Spirit were leading them to translate without error they would not need to debate the point. They could simply put the reading in that the Spirit led them to place in the text, with no recourse to a margin note presenting another option.
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
344
USA
✟3,191.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
In the early 1600’s, Bible scholars had available to them, even at the largest university libraries, less than .1% of the resources that I have in my personal library. Indeed, they did not even have available to them a good concordance—let alone a Greek grammar or lexicon! They had to make hundreds upon hundreds of guesses, and very many of those guesses are now known to have been wrong!



Please..do you really expect me to believe you are better educated than the men in Post 567? Did you read their qualifications? You are honestly trying to make me believe, with a straight face, that you are better qualified than the following group of men for translating God's word? Are you serious? You might want to look at the qualifications of these great men again, before you try to tell me you have surpassed them and expect me to buy it.

Dr. John Hardinge headed up the Oxford Group. Dr. Hardinge was Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.

Dr. John Reynolds, the originator of the translation project, who presented the idea to the commission appointed by King James to study divisions in the Church of England, died before the Authorized Version was published.

Dr. Richard Brett was one of the world's foremost experts in Latin, Greek, Chaldee, Arabic and Ethioptic languages.

Dr. John Harmer, Professor of Greek at Oxford was a noted linguist having mastered not only Greek, but Latin and Hebrew as well.

Dr. Edward Lively, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, died in 1605 before the work was truly begun.

Dr. Lawrence Chaderton was skilled in Greek and Hebrew, and a student of the ancient Jewish writings called "The Rabbis."

Dr. Thomas Harrison was noted for his skill in Hebrew and Greek idioms.

Dr. Robert Spalding, successor to Dr. Lively as Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge.

Dr. Lancelot Andrews was selected to work on the Old Testament at Westminster, and worked on twelve books, Genesis to 2 Kings. Dr. Andrews spoke almost all of the languages spoken in Europe in the seventeenth century. He majored in language at Cambridge University, especially studying the Oriental tongues. Dr. Andrews is said to have been completely fluent in fifteen languages, and had his private devotions in the Greek New Testament, and kept a journal of his devotions written entirely in Greek.

Dr. William Bedwell was also selected to work on the Old Testament at Westminster, working on the same books as Dr. Andrews. Dr. Bedwell was not only fluent in Hebrew and other Oriental languages, but produced a translation of the Epistles of John in Arabic and Latin. He also wrote an entire Arabic dictionary by himself! At the time of his death Dr. Bedwell was working on a Persian dictionary which is still in the Bodlian Library at Oxford. Dr. Bedwell's knowledge of the Shemitic and Cognate languages of Hebrew, Persian, Arabic, Syriac, Aramaic, and Coptic made him an uncontestable expert on the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into English.

Dr. Miles Smith was in the Old Testament group meeting at Oxford, and was selected to translate the books from Isaiah through Malachi. Dr. Smith was so familiar with the Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic languages that they were as familiar to him as his native English.

Dr. Henry Savile was selected to work with the group that was to translate the New Testament at Oxford. He was chosen to translate the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and the Revelation. Dr. Savile was said to be as great a mathematician as he was a Greek scholar. He was chosen to tutor Queen Elizabeth in both mathematics and Greek. Dr. Savile was not only famous for his translation of the great history of Tacitus from Latin into English, but also translated the mathematical work of Euclid on geometry from Greek into English. However, Dr. Savile was most famous for his editing and translating of the complete works of John Chrysostom, one of the most famous of the early Greek church fathers, from the Greek into English. This was a work similar in size to eight very large dictionaries!

Dr. John Bois was a New Testament translator at Cambridge. At the age of five he had read the entire Bible in Hebrew. At the age of six he could write the Hebrew language in "a fair and elegant" hand. He was equally skilled in Greek. He was one of the twelve, two from each committee, who were sent to make the final revision at Stationer's Hall in London. On top of all of his other duties, he was the secretary for the final revision committee, taking notes on all of the meetings. It is largely through his notes that we have knowledge of the inner workings of the committee in this day and age.

The above cited men were of such stature that they cannot be equaled today. Our system of education is not nearly as thorough as was the educational system that produced these great men. There is not a single translator of any modern version that can even come close to the stature of these great men. Our King James Bible is superior to all others not only because it is translated from superior texts, but because it was translated by superior translators.


this is funny to me because I base my belief on nothing but God's word, ever since a few days after I repented and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and was saved from Hell, like a little child who is handed a letter and told, "Here ya go, Son, this is God's love letter to you". Any child knows that if I write a letter to that child, and somebody comes along and changes it, whoever changed it polluted it and it would no longer be the letter I gave to the child.

All of this intellectual stuff to me is a joke, and I think it's funny when scholars think they are superior based on their education. The problem is that they get themselves in positions of authority where they can force others to submit to their teachings. Then they're not so funny. They've ruined a lot of formerly good Christian colleges and churches.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
344
USA
✟3,191.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
You are dodging Joe. Why would you not want to post the Pure Cambridge Edition text for I John 5:12?

And that post you referred to doesn't mention it.

Post 571 answered your entire line of rabbit trails with this stuff before you started running on it. It's you who is doing the dodging and grasping at straws.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,888
2,274
U.S.A.
✟108,818.00
Faith
Baptist
Please..do you really expect me to believe you are better educated than the men in Post 567? Did you read their qualifications? You are honestly trying to make me believe, with a straight face, that you are better qualified than the following group of men for translating God's word? Are you serious? You might want to look at the qualifications of these great men again, before you try to tell me you have surpassed them and expect me to buy it.

Dr. John Hardinge headed up the Oxford Group. Dr. Hardinge was Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.

Dr. John Reynolds, the originator of the translation project, who presented the idea to the commission appointed by King James to study divisions in the Church of England, died before the Authorized Version was published.

Dr. Richard Brett was one of the world's foremost experts in Latin, Greek, Chaldee, Arabic and Ethioptic languages.

Dr. John Harmer, Professor of Greek at Oxford was a noted linguist having mastered not only Greek, but Latin and Hebrew as well.

Dr. Edward Lively, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, died in 1605 before the work was truly begun.

Dr. Lawrence Chaderton was skilled in Greek and Hebrew, and a student of the ancient Jewish writings called "The Rabbis."

Dr. Thomas Harrison was noted for his skill in Hebrew and Greek idioms.

Dr. Robert Spalding, successor to Dr. Lively as Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge.

Dr. Lancelot Andrews was selected to work on the Old Testament at Westminster, and worked on twelve books, Genesis to 2 Kings. Dr. Andrews spoke almost all of the languages spoken in Europe in the seventeenth century. He majored in language at Cambridge University, especially studying the Oriental tongues. Dr. Andrews is said to have been completely fluent in fifteen languages, and had his private devotions in the Greek New Testament, and kept a journal of his devotions written entirely in Greek.

Dr. William Bedwell was also selected to work on the Old Testament at Westminster, working on the same books as Dr. Andrews. Dr. Bedwell was not only fluent in Hebrew and other Oriental languages, but produced a translation of the Epistles of John in Arabic and Latin. He also wrote an entire Arabic dictionary by himself! At the time of his death Dr. Bedwell was working on a Persian dictionary which is still in the Bodlian Library at Oxford. Dr. Bedwell's knowledge of the Shemitic and Cognate languages of Hebrew, Persian, Arabic, Syriac, Aramaic, and Coptic made him an uncontestable expert on the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into English.

Dr. Miles Smith was in the Old Testament group meeting at Oxford, and was selected to translate the books from Isaiah through Malachi. Dr. Smith was so familiar with the Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic languages that they were as familiar to him as his native English.

Dr. Henry Savile was selected to work with the group that was to translate the New Testament at Oxford. He was chosen to translate the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and the Revelation. Dr. Savile was said to be as great a mathematician as he was a Greek scholar. He was chosen to tutor Queen Elizabeth in both mathematics and Greek. Dr. Savile was not only famous for his translation of the great history of Tacitus from Latin into English, but also translated the mathematical work of Euclid on geometry from Greek into English. However, Dr. Savile was most famous for his editing and translating of the complete works of John Chrysostom, one of the most famous of the early Greek church fathers, from the Greek into English. This was a work similar in size to eight very large dictionaries!

Dr. John Bois was a New Testament translator at Cambridge. At the age of five he had read the entire Bible in Hebrew. At the age of six he could write the Hebrew language in "a fair and elegant" hand. He was equally skilled in Greek. He was one of the twelve, two from each committee, who were sent to make the final revision at Stationer's Hall in London. On top of all of his other duties, he was the secretary for the final revision committee, taking notes on all of the meetings. It is largely through his notes that we have knowledge of the inner workings of the committee in this day and age.

The above cited men were of such stature that they cannot be equaled today. Our system of education is not nearly as thorough as was the educational system that produced these great men. There is not a single translator of any modern version that can even come close to the stature of these great men. Our King James Bible is superior to all others not only because it is translated from superior texts, but because it was translated by superior translators.


this is funny to me because I base my belief on nothing but God's word, like a little child who is handed a letter and told, "Here ya go, Son, this is God's love letter to you". Any child knows that if I write a letter to that child, and somebody comes along and changes it, whoever changed it polluted it and it would no longer be the letter I gave to the child.

All of this intellectual stuff to me is a joke, and I think it's funny when scholars think they are superior based on their education. The problem is that they get themselves in positions of authority where they can force others to submit to their teachings. Then they're not so funny. They've ruined a lot of formerly good Christian colleges and churches.

In the early 1600’s, Bible scholars had available to them, even at the largest university libraries, less than .1% of the resources that I have in my personal library. Indeed, they did not even have available to them a good concordance—let alone a Greek grammar or lexicon! They had to make hundreds upon hundreds of guesses, and very many of those guesses are now known to have been wrong!
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟876,752.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Post 571 answered your entire line of rabbit trails with this stuff before you started running on it. It's you who is doing the dodging and grasping at straws.

Joe, these are not the same.

Pure Cambridge Edition KJV:
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the
Son of God hath not life.


1611 KJV:
12 Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.

Tell me how your post explains that. It does not.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
344
USA
✟3,191.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Joe, these are not the same.

Pure Cambridge Edition KJV:
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the
Son of God hath not life.


1611 KJV:
12 Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.

Tell me how your post explains that. It does not.

Does it bother you that Jesus is the Son of God?
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,888
2,274
U.S.A.
✟108,818.00
Faith
Baptist
The Cambridge Edition is simply a standardized English copy of God's perfect Word, which He wondrously gave to us in 1611.


My Bible is the Cambridge edition. Good enough.

Was the Cambridge edition standardized by men or by God? If it was standardized by God, why did God have to change what he wrote in 1611?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟876,752.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Does it bother you that Jesus is the Son of God?

Of course it does not bother me. Jesus is most definitely the Son of God.


It does bother me you claim the Cambridge and 1611 editions are the same when the Cambridge editors added "of God".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟876,752.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I Timothy 1:4


Pure Cambridge Edition KJV:
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do

1611 Edition KJV:
4 Neither giue heed to fables, and endlesse genealogies, which minister questions, rather then edifying which is in faith: so doe.

Again, these are not the same.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟876,752.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
PrincetonGuy said:
It does not bother me either—but it does bother me that the translators and editors of the KJV left God out of the Bible!



Well clearly if we were Joe we would call the 1611 Bible of the devil, inspired by new age satanists.


 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
344
USA
✟3,191.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Of course it does not bother me. Jesus is most definitely the Son of God.


It does bother me you claim the Cambridge and 1611 editions are the same when the Cambridge editors added "of God".

will you ever read my posts and refrain from putting words in my mouth?
 
Upvote 0
J

Jack Koons

Guest
Current Cambridge and Oxford editions* of the KJV do not only update the spelling and grammar of the 1611 editions; they also make changes that affect the meaning of the text. Who was inspired—the translators who made numerous mistakes, or the editors who corrected more than 400 errors in 1613, or the editors who corrected still more errors in 1629, 1638, 1744, 1762, and 1769?
Listed below are changes that have been brought to my attention. There may be many more of them.
Genesis 19:21 concerning this thing > concerning this thing also
Genesis 23:18 gates > gate
Genesis 39:1 hand > hands
Genesis 39:16 her lord > his lord
Genesis 47:6 any man > any men
Exodus 15:25 he made a statute > he made for them a statute
Exodus 21:32 thirty shekels > thirty shekels of silver
Exodus 23:13 names > name
Exodus 35:29 hands > hand
Leviticus 2:4 it shall be an unleavened cake > it shall be unleavened cakes
Leviticus 10:14 sacrifice > sacrifices
Leviticus 19:34 shall be as one born > shall be unto you as one born
Leviticus 20:11 shall be put to death > shall surely be put to death
Leviticus 25:23 were strangers > are strangers
Leviticus 26:23 be reformed by these things > be reformed by me by these things
Leviticus 26:40 the iniquity of their fathers > their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers
Numbers 4:40 houses > house
Numbers 7:55 charger of an hundred and thirty shekels > charger of the weight of an hundred and thirty shekels
Deuteronomy 5:29 keep my commandments > keep all my commandments
Joshua 3:11 covenant, even the Lord > covenant of the Lord
Joshua 7:14 households [2nd occurrence] > household
Ruth 3:15 and he went into the citie. > and she went into the city.
1 Samuel 18:27 David arose, he and his men > David arose and went, he and his men
1 Samuel 28:7 servant > servants
2 Samuel 16:8 to thy mischief >in thy mischief
2 Kings 11:10 in the temple. > in the temple of the LORD.
2 Kings 23:21 this book of the Covenant > the book of this covenant
1 Chronicles 7:5 were men of might > were valiant men of might
1 Chronicles 11:15 of David > to David
2 Chronicles 28:22 this > his
Job 33:22 His soul draweth near > Yea, his soul draweth near
Psalm 141:9 snare > snares
Proverbs 7:21 With much fair speech > With her much fair speech
Ecclesiastes 2:16 shall be forgotten > shall all be forgotten
Song of Solomon 4:6 mountains > mountain
Song of Solomon 5:12 water > waters
Isaiah 34:11 The cormorant and the bittern > But the cormorant and the bittern
Isaiah 49:13 heaven > heavens
Isaiah 49:13 God > the LORD
Isaiah 57:8 and made a covenant and made thee a covenant
Jeremiah 4:6 standards >standard
Jeremiah 31:14 be satisfied with goodness > be satisfied with my goodness
Jeremiah 31:18 thou art the Lord my God > for thou art the Lord my God
Jeremiah 51:12 watchman > watchmen
Jeremiah 51:30 their > her
Ezekiel 6:8 that he may > that ye may
Ezekiel 12:19 violence of them > violence of all them
Ezekiel 24:5 him > them
Ezekiel 24:7 poured it upon the ground > poured it not upon the ground
Ezekiel 48:8 they > ye
Daniel 3:15 the midst of a fiery furnace > the midst of a burning fiery furnace
Daniel 12:13 the lot > thy lot
Joel 3:13 the wickedness > their wickedness
Amos 8:3 Temples > temple
Zechariah 7:7 of the plain > and the plain
Malachi 3:4 offerings > offering
Matthew 12:23 Is this the son of David? > Is not this the son of David?
Matthew 14:9 othes > oath's
Matthew 16:16 Thou art Christ > Thou art the Christ
Mark 6:26 othes > oath's
John 11:3 sister > sisters
John 12:22 told > tell
John 15:20 the Lord > his Lord
Acts 5:34 a doctor of law > a doctor of the law
Romans 14:10 we shall all stand > for we shall all stand
1 Corinthians 10:28 The earth is the Lords > for the earth is the Lord's
1 Corinthians 12:28 helps in governments > helps, governments
1 Corinthians 15:6 And > After
Philippians 4:6 request > requests
2 Thessalonians 2:14 the Lord Jesus Christ > our Lord Jesus Christ
1 Timothy 1:4 rather than edifying > rather than godly edifying
2 Timothy 4:8 unto them also > unto all them also
Hebrews 3:10 hearts > heart
Hebrews 12:1 run with patience unto the race > run with patience the race
1 John 5:12 he that hath not the Son, hath not life. > he that hath not the Son of God
hath not life.
Revelation 13:6 dwelt > dwell

*Even the current Cambridge and Oxford editions of the KJV differ from each other—even doctrinally at Jeremiah 34:16,

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

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

While the fact that these changes were made is factual, the reason why needs clarification.

As I make the following statements, I hope the readers (including Joe), are willing to hear me out to the end.

The KJV of 1611 was not without PRINTING errors. Now then, even though there are approximately 400 textual changes made away from the original 1611 Edition, they were not made to change a text that was believed to be correct in 1611, and then found to be in need of correction later: rather; there were “textual” changes made from the 1611 Edition because it was found to be a PRINTING error, (an error that was made in the typesetting in the printing of the 1611), was not discovered until AFTER the printing was complete.

One of the tactics used by, and taught by textual critics to say the KJV is not perfect, is the fact that there are in fact differences between the 1611 and the 1769 we use today. What is not often discussed, is why these differences exist. I do a lot of writing. I write Bible lessons, articles, and other writs. However, I have never printed anything that I have not had to go back and edit my own work. I find typos of all sorts, (even though I have spell check, and normally spell words relatively well). Sometimes I find that my typos are because my brain is moving at a different rate of speed than my fingers. I may think five words, but only type four (or visa-versa).

Hence, to keep this concise, the printers had to set the entire Bible from a handwritten manuscript, one letter at a time, on one page at a time. During this process, many setting mistakes were made. Words were missed, miss-spelled, and so forth. Additionally, between 1611 and 1769 the spelling of the English language was still being standardized, and the font was changed from a gothic type, to a roman type.

Additionally, as has been noted, there were also differences between the Oxford and Cambridge Editions. Much work has gone into research to determine the correct rendering of the text.

Jack

I actually had to edit this, I forgot the words, "of speed", (relating to my typing).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
344
USA
✟3,191.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Was the Cambridge edition standardized by men or by God? If it was standardized by God, why did God have to change what he wrote in 1611?

who standardizes you, and what is the standard, and how do you know the standard if you don't have it in unquestionable writing? Are you the original or are you the latest edition of you? Who changed you? How do you know the change was valid?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0