I am a proud King James Version Bible Belt Baptist

[TCassidy]

No, it is not true.

What isn't true?

Furthermore, it is willfully deceptive,

What is deceptive?

First, the facts... The King James Bible contains 791,328 words. Since the first King James Bible rolled off the press in 1611 to the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today, there have been - are you ready - there have been a grand total of 421 word changes! That's it!

Okay, but what does this have to do with the discussion?

If the 1611 KJV says "God" and the 1769 edition says "LORD" (Isaiah 49:13) that is a change of substance but would not affect the word count as each word only counts as 1.

The word changes from 1611 to 1769 are changes that change the meaning of the passage. Not that change the number of words in the passage.

 

[The7thColporteur]

...

It's like you are not serious.

 

[The7thColporteur]

Good. I agree. So let's just ignore The7thColporteur's argumentative postings and get back to the mature, reasonable, mature discussion.

Yeah let's ignore The7thColporteur's 'argumentative' postings, when all The7thColporteur asked for was the specific evidence of the 1100 + 'differences' [which TCassidy claimed] to be posted in this thread.

All I got was a link. So much for discussion. You are not serious.

 

[TCassidy]

We have to be careful not to assume because of age or worldly education we know everything, that is what that verse means .

I agree. I don't know anyone who thinks he knows everything so I will just have to accept your judgement on speculation. Unless, of course, you are just using that as a judgmental accusation against someone who disagreed with you which, in that case, I would disagree.

if God has you in some other Bible version I am to not question as you are not to question where He has me,

Well, God has put me in the Bible He inspired. The Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (I prefer the Ben Chayyim text as I believe it is more accurate, but there are only about 8 places where it disagrees with the Ben Asher text) and the Byzantine Greek test of the New Testament (and, again, I prefer The New Testament In The Original Greek: Byzantine Textform as published by Robinson and Pierpont).

Do you consider the traditional, majority Hebrew and Greek texts to be authoritative?

 

[TCassidy]

All I got was a link.

All you posted was some links. Double standard?

So much for discussion.

You didn't discuss. You posted links to threads in which you refused to discuss the issue.

You are not serious.

I am quite serious. I take the word of God very seriously. I have done so for over 60 years.

 

[The7thColporteur]

All you posted was some links. Double standard?

You made a claim. I wanted the evidence of the claim you made in specifics, or withdraw the claim.

My links are in response to the OP, not you.

... You didn't discuss. You posted links to threads in which you refused to discuss the issue.

Hadn't planned on sticking around [this is a Baptist congregation forums area], until you showed up.

...I am quite serious. I take the word of God very seriously. I have done so for over 60 years.

Non sequitur to what you claimed. Evidence in this thread please. I want the full list of the 1100+ 'differences' you claimed.

You are still dodging.

 

[TCassidy]

It's like you are not serious.

I am very serious. And I will be right here when you decide to "have an honest and mature discussion on English bible translations and how best to evaluate their relative merits, or lack thereof."

 

[The7thColporteur]

I am very serious. And I will be right here when you decide to "have an honest and mature discussion on English bible translations and how best to evaluate their relative merits, or lack thereof."

Dodge. Do you work for this company?

 

[TCassidy]

You made a claim. I wanted the evidence of the claim you made in specifics, or withdraw the claim.

I posted one such change. Did you bother to read it? What do you think? Which reading is right, in your opinion, and why do you prefer it to the other reading?

 

[TCassidy]

Dodge. Do you work for this company?

What company? You are not making any sense.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Great!

Here are the first questions I asked earlier in this thread:

#1. Which KJV is the preserved word of God in English? The 1611 1st edition 1st printing or 1611 1st edition 2nd printing (they are different)? The 1613 edition? The 1629 edition? The 1638 edition? The 1762 edition? The 1769 edition? The 1873 edition? All are different, and as the KJVO mantra goes, "Things that are different are not the same."

#2. There are over 1100 differences between the KJV of 1611 and the 1769 edition that most people who use a KJV use today. Even the KJVO apologist, D.A. Waite, says there are 136 "changes of substance" which change the meaning of the text. So, if the current 1769 KJV is the "preserved word of God in English" doesn't that mean the 1611 is not the "preserved word of God in English?"

#3. What is the basis for your assertion that the KJV is the ONLY (the "O" in KJVO) preserved word of God in English?

And last but certainly not least:

What criteria do you use to determine if the wording is correct?

I don't know if trying to tear down his faith in the KJV on his intro thread is really the best idea. I like the KJV as a Protestant translation. It's a good translation, and more traditional and beautiful than the modern one's I've looked at. I like the DRB and NAB, too, but that's a different topic.

I have a lot of respect for the KJV only Baptists. They're generally a conservative, faithful, tough old lot.

 

[The7thColporteur]

What you see presently is what you will get if any desire to continue with TCassidy. Seriously. The evidence is before you, and also over at Baptist Bored.

 

[Desires Light]

Many Blessings, Amen?!

I don't know what that means.

 

[TCassidy]

I don't know if trying to tear down his faith in the KJV

I am not trying to tear down his faith in the KJV. I have great faith in the KJV. I believe it is the word of God.

It's a good translation, and more traditional and beautiful than the modern one's I've looked at.

I agree!

I like the DRB and NAB, too, but that's a different topic.

Well, not so much.

 

[TCassidy]

I wanted the evidence of the claim you made in specifics, or withdraw the claim.

Okay, even though you have not yet dealt with the first one I gave you, here are a few more.

Joshua 3:11 – “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord”
2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”
Isaiah 49:13 – “for God” vs. “for the LORD”
Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”
Jeremiah 51:30 – “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwellingplaces”
Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may”
Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”
Ezekiel 24:7 – “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”
Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”
Daniel 3:15 – “a fierie furnace” vs. “a burning fiery furnace”
1 Corinthians 12:28 – “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments”
1 Corinthians 15:6 – “And that” vs. “After that”
1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”

 

[The7thColporteur]

Today's KJV and 1611 Compared and More

Just playing the game you wanted.

Weren't there several revisions of the KJV Bible since 1611?

Printing Errors

Many more can be given. You don't want to read those? Respond to those websites? Why not?

When are you going to actually produce in this forum your claimed "1100" [+] "differences"?

There is no sense in even beginning until you produce what you claimed to start with. I want all 1100. Here. Cited. Scrivener can't help you.

Maybe you don't like reading links, maybe video [just one example]?

 

[Drought of the Heart]

I agree. I don't know anyone who thinks he knows everything so I will just have to accept your judgement on speculation. Unless, of course, you are just using that as a judgmental accusation against someone who disagreed with you which, in that case, I would disagree.

Well, God has put me in the Bible He inspired. The Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (I prefer the Ben Chayyim text as I believe it is more accurate, but there are only about 8 places where it disagrees with the Ben Asher text) and the Byzantine Greek test of the New Testament (and, again, I prefer The New Testament In The Original Greek: Byzantine Textform as published by Robinson and Pierpont).

Do you consider the traditional, majority Hebrew and Greek texts to be authoritative?

I consider the KJV with the help of the Holy Spirit authoritative. I look many things up in Hebrew or Greek dictionaries if I have a question and they have never differed in meaning. Peace to you and this is the end of this discussion for me...

 

[dysert]

I prefer The New Testament In The Original Greek: Byzantine Textform as published by Robinson and Pierpont

Have you looked into The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text by Hodges and Farstad? If so, why do you prefer the other?

 

[TCassidy]

Have you looked into The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text by Hodges and Farstad? If so, why do you prefer the other?

Yes. It was a good early effort but the Robinson/Pierpont work is superior, in my opinion, largely due to the methodology used in determining the reading most likely to represent the original.

 

[TCassidy]

Well, The7thColporteur and Drought of the Heart run away with their tails between their legs, unable, it would seem, to "have an honest and mature discussion on English bible translations and how best to evaluate their relative merits, or lack thereof."

But that is the standard MO of the KJVO.