The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

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!

Click to expand...

You make a statement like this and you still expect me to believe you are better qualified to translate God's word than the translators of the King James Bible? Did you really keep a straight face when you were trying to tell me you are more qualified than they were for the work they did?

tall73 said:

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.

Click to expand...

so you like edifying, but you don't like godly edifying?

How are you proving the 1611 King James Bible is not the word of God by attacking the Cambridge Edition?

Jack Koons said:

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).

Click to expand...

They'll still reject the King James Bible as the word of God and try to replace it with phony translations. It's hard for a scholar to concede that another scholar's work was better than his own. They worked awfully hard for that scholarship.

tall73 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Cambridge Edition is simply a standardized English copy of God's perfect Word, which He wondrously gave to us in 1611. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean your own personal preference of translation is better.

That's kind of a fun comparison...our own words are preserved by God the same as His words are preserved....We can't go back and change the things we said. Even when Jack edited his own words, what he wrote was written. The correct version was in his head at the time he committed typos, but the fact that he wrote it a different way is history and cannot be changed. The fact that the words were correctly in order in his head is also history and cannot be changed.

Now when we apply this illustration to God's word....He never made a mistake in writing or in thought. His word is history. I like to call it His story because His story is history and cannot be changed. You don't change God's word anymore than you change Jack's word. Modern versions change God's word.

The King James Bible does not change God's word, and it rebukes all versions by exposing their heretical changes and deletions of key doctrinal verses and passages. God won't buy those phony versions and neither will I. If you want to buy them, go ahead. Maybe I'll make a new translation and sell you 1000 copies at half price so you can sell them at 75 percent and make a nice profit.

It worked for Ray Comfort (whom I appreciate for his Street Preaching ministries, and livingwaters.com. He didn't like any version so he made his own and he'll sell you a copy for 100 dollars. I'll sell you mine for 50)
I'm sure I could make a nice version with eloquent wording to tickle your ears so you will enjoy reading it more than any other version. I could add a lot of poetic fun rhymes....It's really not hard to do for a poet like me....Just open my King James Bible, use poetic license to change enough words to get a copyright, and run ads on TV telling how good of a Bible it is, easier to understand and more accurate than all the others.

I'll call it "The Layman's Translation", modernized for easier communication and reading...or maybe I'll call it "The Newest King James Version" or "The Bible for Dummies"........hahaha

Jack Koons said:

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).

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that does not work in every instance.

John 15:

Cambridge:
20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

1611:
20 Remember the word that I said vnto you, The seruant is not greater then the Lord: if they haue persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they haue kept my saying, they will keepe yours also.

The recent version speaks about "his lord", with lord in the lower case, but the 1611 "the Lord" with Lord in the uppercase. That is not just missing a word.

tall73 said:

Sorry, but that does not work in every instance.

John 15:

Cambridge:
20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

1611:
20 Remember the word that I said vnto you, The seruant is not greater then the Lord: if they haue persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they haue kept my saying, they will keepe yours also.

The recent version speaks about "his lord", with lord in the lower case, but the 1611 "the Lord" with Lord in the uppercase. That is not just missing a word.

Click to expand...

I think what Jack said does work, and if you were 1/100th as critical of your favorite modern version you would in all of your honesty probably rush to burn it. You are trying to trash the 1611 Bible by using the Cambridge edition against it. If you use either the Cambridge edition or the 1611 King James Bible against any modern version, the atrocities of their changes and deletions require a lot of willful ignorance for anybody to say they do not change the word of God...and I know what you are going to say to this and I'll simply say:

Again, Post 571 as well as Jack's explanation thoroughly answers all of your grasping at straws. You can't prove the King James Bible is not God's word by using the Cambridge edition to try to trash it.

SaintJoeNow said:

I think what Jack said does work, and if you were 1/100th as critical of your favorite modern version you would in all of your honesty probably rush to burn it. You are trying to trash the 1611 Bible by using the Cambridge edition against it. If you use either the Cambridge edition or the 1611 King James Bible against any modern version, the atrocities of their changes and deletions require a lot of willful ignorance for anybody to say they do not change the word of God...and I know what you are going to say to this and I'll simply say:

Again, Post 571 as well as Jack's explanation thoroughly answers all of your grasping at straws. You can't prove the King James Bible is not God's word by using the Cambridge edition to try to trash it.

Click to expand...

It does not work to change the Lord, obviously capitalized, to his lord just by leaving out something. The change is taking Jesus out of the text, and treating it as an analogy--the same thing you criticized the poster for in an earlier post. It is a change to two words to change the meaning. The source you quoted said only spelling changes. That is not just a spelling change, or a misprint. It is a change in readings.

And the only reason we point out such things is because you make a claim of a perfect translation.

The ESV web site falsely claims the ESV is a “new” Bible translation. As we just read, it’s not new – it’s a rehash job of the corrupt apostate RSV:




“The English Standard Version (ESV) Bible is a new, essentially literal Bible translation that combines word-for-word precision and accuracy with literary excellence, beauty, and depth of meaning.”

(http://www.esv.org/about/intro)


I only need to see one lie from somebody supporting their work for me to reject it.

To me, all this scholarly stuff is kinda boring. I had enough of it in college before the internet was invented, and forgot most of it since then. It's kinda boring, but then I kinda enjoy it because I enjoy simple common sense right and wrong logic, even if it is presented in a long drawn out scholarly kinda way like Jack does. Jacks stuff is cool because he takes the time to answer the details of silly objections to the preservation of scripture promised by God in the Bible.

It boggles my mind how anybody can read this stuff and still support any modern version of the Bible in any way.

THE WARNING. . .



The Lord has some strong warnings against adding and subtracting from the Word of God.



Deuteronomy 4:2 reads: "YE SHALL NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it . . ."



Proverbs 30:6, reads, "ADD THOU NOT unto his words . . ."



And just in case you missed it, GOD'S LAST WARNING is Revelation 22:18,19, ". . . If any man SHALL ADD unto these things. . . And if any man shall TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life. . ."


And Jesus Christ, in Luke 8:12, gives a clear aim of Satan, ". . . then cometh the devil, and TAKETH AWAY the word . . ."



THE ESV “TAKETH AWAY” 17 COMPLETE VERSES



As we go through this material, get your ESV Bible and please check me out. Don’t believe a word I’m writing. (see Romans 3:4) Please check me out. See the evidence for yourself. Note: Most of these examples of perversions are found in the vast majority of all the new versions. The reason they all carry these corruptions is that they are all built upon the corrupt Westcott and Hort Greek text. And the W&H text carries these thousands of distortions and deletions. Remember they’re not simply updating the King James “English” text, but they are build upon a drastically different corrupt Greek text, produced by two “admitted” heretics.



The ESV completely removes the following 17 verses:




Matthew 12:47

Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.



Matthew 17:21

Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.



Matthew 18:11

For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.



Matthew 23:14

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.



Mark 7:16

If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.



Mark 9:44

Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.



Mark 9:46

Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.



Mark 11:26

But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.



Mark 15:28

28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.



Luke 17:36

Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.



Luke 22:44

And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.



Luke 23:17

(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)



John 5:4

For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.



Acts 8:37

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.



Acts 15:34

Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.



Acts 24:7 (note half of Acts 24:6 and 24:8 is also removed)

7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,



Acts 28:29

And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.



Romans 16:24

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.



After Mark 16:8 the ESV states, "Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20.” Zap-There goes another 12 verses. And by the way, that is absolutely untrue! The book, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark, by Dean Burgon contains over 400 pages of documented evidence for Mark 16:9-20, that has never been refuted, nor ever will!



After John 7:52, the NIV, reads, "The earliest manuscripts do not include John 7:53-8:11" Zap-There goes another 12 verses!



THE ESV “TAKETH AWAY” OVER 33,000 WORDS IN JUST THE NEW TESTAMENT!

THE ESV “TAKETH AWAY” OVER 33,000 WORDS IN JUST THE NEW TESTAMENT!



A word comparison with the New Testament of the KJB and the ESV reveals the ESV removes over a staggering 33,000 words! And that is nothing to sneeze at. That equals removing the complete books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John and Jude - combined!



That’s a huge part of your Bible that someone decided you didn’t need!



And that’s just the words ripped from the New Testament!



So much for the Lord’s stern warning against adding and taking away from His Words.

THE ESV & THE LORD JESUS CHRIST



Among the more troubling changes in the new versions is the strategic attack on the Lord Jesus Christ. Some times the attack is small and subtle, such as removing “Lord” or “Christ,” or swipes at the virgin birth or the blood atonement. Other times, the attack is a nuclear assault, such as stripping “God” from 1 Timothy 3:16. But make no mistake – the attack is real. And most people reading just the ESV (or the other versions) never realize this sinister attack on the Lord Jesus Christ.



There’s something very special about the name of “Jesus”.



The Bible says in Acts 4:12, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Philippians 2:10 says about the name of Jesus, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;” (Philippians 2:10)



And the ESV removes the precious name of “Jesus” 18 times! And believe it or not – it removes “Jesus Christ” 51 times!



And that’s not all. . . The ESV removes the word “Christ” 39 times. The “Lord” 66 times. And “God” 38 times.

there's so much evil in the way the RSV attacks Jesus Christ it might make me puke showing it now after I ate and am ready to sleep.

I'll post those things tomorrow if I have time. This kind of expose' is easily done on any modern version.

SaintJoeNow said:

Why do you think it's good to trash the Bible?

Click to expand...

The irony of this statement, coming from you, will be obvious to all the observers. You have spammed page after page of material from websites, largely without referencing a source, to attack every Bible but one in this thread. Yet you get upset when someone points out issues with your favorite Bible.

I have said I think the KJV is a good translation. I think the scholars were dedicated men. I think it is perfectly fine to use it, and because of the underlying text, it is one of only a couple that would be best to use in my opinion.

What I have not said, and what the translators did not say, is that it is a perfect translation of the autographs into English.

It is not attacking the KJV to point out what it is.

A reminder of the words of the translators:


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.

They were not sure of each reading. They specifically presented multiple ones because of this in some instances. This of course goes completely against the notions you are putting forth.

And you have made no attempt to answer this at all.

tall73 said:

It does not work to change the Lord, obviously capitalized, to his lord just by leaving out something. The change is taking Jesus out of the text, and treating it as an analogy--the same thing you criticized the poster for in an earlier post. It is a change to two words to change the meaning. The source you quoted said only spelling changes. That is not just a spelling change, or a misprint. It is a change in readings.

And the only reason we point out such things is because you make a claim of a perfect translation.

Click to expand...

The claim is that the King James Bible is the word of God. You are grasping at straws. The fact that you don't believe you have the word of God in English only means you don't have it. I have it...I have two copies sitting here beside me, one is the nice new one I take to church and the other one is the one I have read for 25 years while you have been trying to take it away from me by trying to change it. You don't need to change it, you need to read it. I plan to read it through at least twice this year because it's God's word and it's His love letter to me, my Father's book and I would be nice if you would stop saying He didn't give it to me because He gave it to me. You can't take His love letter away from me, you can't trash Him by saying His letter is unclear or questionable...to me, the only one who looks bad when trying to trash my Fathers word is you, not God.

SaintJoeNow said:

there's so much evil in the way the RSV attacks Jesus Christ it might make me puke showing it now after I ate and am ready to sleep.

I'll post those things tomorrow if I have time. This kind of expose' is easily done on any modern version.

Click to expand...

Joe, try going back and putting the source of each of these walls of pasted material tomorrow.

SaintJoeNow said:

The claim is that the King James Bible is the word of God. You are grasping at straws.

Click to expand...

What is grasping at straws is your looking at two different versions of the text in the Cambridge and 1611 and saying they are the same.

Cambridge:
20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

1611:
20 Remember the word that I said vnto you, The seruant is not greater then the Lord: if they haue persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they haue kept my saying, they will keepe yours also.

Those are not the same. And it is not just a typo. They changed the reading. And in this case they did not do so until 1762, after multiple editions had gone to print. This would be Paris' edition apparently, per the extensive introduction to the Cambridge Paragraph Bible where the history of the editions is outlined.

tall73 said:

Sorry, but that does not work in every instance.

John 15:
Cambridge:
20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
1611:
20 Remember the word that I said vnto you, The seruant is not greater then the Lord: if they haue persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they haue kept my saying, they will keepe yours also.
The recent version speaks about "his lord", with lord in the lower case, but the 1611 "the Lord" with Lord in the uppercase. That is not just missing a word.

Click to expand...

Now Tall, do you honestly believe that you can say in the affirmative, that this could not have been a mistake by the type-setters of the King James 1611 Bible? Can I say in the affirmative that it was a mistake? No. However, I believe the chances that it was a mistake, is far greater than otherwise. I believe it is very easy to see that the printing conditions of the 1600’s were very poor. They didn’t have computers, they set one letter at a time, backwards into a press, which is very easy to do wrong. You’re right, it isn’t a missing word, but it can easily be understood why they got things wrong once in a while. Consider this: in a book that has 783,137 words, having approximately 400 textual mistakes, as well as the many other actual spelling mistakes, this is clearly evidence of God’s hand upon the preservation of His words.

Jack