• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
In 1966 there was a further revision of Kittel's "Biblia Hebraica" called "Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia," which was also based on the "older" Ben Asher text. This new edition of Kittel is generally referred to as BHS. The revision was the work of unbelieving German rationalists, and represents theologically liberal modernism in its worst form. The 1937 BHK and the newer BHS are not only based on a few minor Hebrew manuscripts which contain many erroneous footnotes, but "corrections" were often made to these already inadequate and corrupt texts by referring to such things as the "Septuagint" or "LXX", which is nothing more than the Hebrew Scriptures translated into the Greek language. The "Septuagint" is a poor translation at best of the Hebrew due mainly to the fact that it does not follow the verbal and formal rules of translation, but is largely a paraphrase, changing the wording wherever the translators desired, seeking to "clarify" the meaning of the original.

The Syriac Version. This was a version of both the Old and New Testaments translated into the Syriac language. The source language is in doubt, some insisting it was translated by Jews from the Hebrew, and others insisting it was translated by early Christians from the Greek.

The Latin Version was the complete Bible translated into Latin, portions of which may date to the second century A. D. Jerome is generally credited with the first complete Latin version, called the Latin Vulgate, or Jerome's Vulgate, which dates to the fourth century.


Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (4/4)
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
God's appointed guardians of the Old Testament Text were the Jews according to Romans 3:1-2, "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there in circumcision? Much in every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." The methods used by the Jews in fulfilling their responsibilities as the guardians of these sacred texts is an interesting study. There were eight rules that the Jewish copyists used in the copying of the texts:

1. The parchment must be made from the skin of a clean animal (clean meaning ceremonially clean according to the Old Testament sanitary laws); must be prepared by a Jew only, and the skins must be fastened together by strings taken from clean animals.

2. Each column must have no less than forty-eight, nor more than sixty lines. The entire copy must be first lined.

3. The ink must be of no other color than black, and it must be prepared according to a special recipe.

4. No word nor letter could be written from memory; the scribe must have an authentic copy before him, and he must read and pronounce aloud each word before writing it.

5. He must reverently wipe his pen each time before writing the word for "God" (Elohim), and he must wash his whole body before writing the name "Jehovah" (LORD in our King James Bibles), lest the Holy Name be contaminated.

6. Strict rules were given concerning forms of the letters, spaces between letters, words and sections, the use of the pen, the color of the parchment, etc.

7. The revision (to correct any errors) of a roll must be made within thirty days after the work was finished; otherwise it was worthless. One mistake on a sheet condemned the entire sheet. If three mistakes were found on any page, the entire manuscript was condemned.

8. Every word and every letter was counted, and if a letter was omitted, or if an extra letter was inserted, or if two letters touched one another, the manuscript was condemned and destroyed at once.

NOTE: H. S. Miller, writing in his book "General Biblical Introduction", says: "Some of these rules may appear extreme and absurd, yet they show how sacred the Holy Word of the Old Testament was to its custodians, the Jews, and they give us strong encouragement to believe that we have the real Old Testament, the same one that our Lord had and which was given by inspiration of God."

So then, our only choice is between the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text that has been the standard text of the Old Testament for well over two thousand years, and is represented by the vast majority of the existing Old Testament manuscripts, or the new, modern text that has only a little minor manuscript support, and leaves out or changes between 20,000 and 30,000 words in the Old Testament. The choice is obvious, only the Traditional (Ben Chayyim) Text can lay claim to uninterrupted use for all the generations from the time of David (Psalm 12) until now.


Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (4/4)


I love this stuff, it sounds so much like me if I wrote it all myself...I wonder why that is...Hmmmm?????
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The New Testament Manuscripts.

The Traditional Text. The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others. Although no complete Bible manuscripts have survived which would allow us to date the Traditional text to the first century, there is a strong witness to the early existence and use of the Traditional text by the early church in its lectionaries. These lectionaries were portions of the Scripture that were read in the churches on certain days. Because modern printing technology had not yet been invented, many of the early Christians did not have personal copies of the Bible. It was a custom of the early church to read a portion of the Gospels, then a portion from the Epistles each day. This practice is similar to our reading a verse of Scripture from our daily devotional booklet, then starting the day in prayer, the only difference being, it was done in the church house rather than in your own house. Nearly every lectionary in existence contains Traditional readings, attesting to the very early existence and use of the Traditional text. The early Baptist church, called "Waldensians" by their enemies, which can be dated to 120 A. D., was known to have quoted from the Traditional text in many of its writings. Also the vast majority of all existing manuscripts, somewhere around ninety percent, follow the Traditional text. The Greek Orthodox Church used, and still uses, the Traditional text, and they are experts in the Greek language, as it is their native tongue! (Allow me to say here that the attempt by some "scholars" to identify the Traditional Text as being merely the "liturgical text of the Greek Orthodox Church" is hypocritical at best, and deliberately deceptive at worst. Such a pathetically weak attempt to attach the word "liturgical" to the Traditional Text is sophomoric and moronic. It would be like saying the King James Bible is merely the liturgical text of the Anglican Church simply because it was used exclusively by them for over three hundred years. If such condemnation by association is valid, then the Revised Version (which they love so much) is the liturgical text of the Presbyterian Church, the New American Standard Version (which they also seem to love), and the New International Version are the liturgical texts of the New Evangelical Church, and the Living Bible is the liturgical text of the Charismatic Church. Such deliberately deceptive statements have no place in an honest inquiry into the true identity of the preserved text of the Holy Scriptures!)

Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (4/4)
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The earliest translations of the Greek text into a foreign language produced versions that follow the traditional text. The Syriac Peshitta, which I mentioned earlier, bears such strong witness to the antiquity of the Traditional text of the New Testament, the early proponents of the Critical Text had to get it out of the second and third centuries (100-300 A. D.), where it has been historically agreed to have been produced, and make it appear as if it were of later origin. J. A. Hort theorized a late revision to account for it, and F. C. Burkitt went even farther than Hort and specified Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa (411-435 A. D.) as the author of the revision! The complete absence of even one shred of evidence to support any part of this theory has very conveniently been ignored by the proponents of the Critical text. The true evidence of course points in exactly the opposite direction, namely that Rabbula himself used the Old Syriac text in his earliest writings! Additional strong evidence against this poorly constructed fraud of a theory is found in the fact that one of the early sects, called the Nestorians, used the Peshitta extensively and thought of it as the authoritative Word of God. This would be unthinkable if the Peshitta were the work of Rabbula, who was a great adversary of the Nestorians and openly denounced them as heretics! I seriously doubt they would consider any of their greatest enemy's work as being authoritative!

Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (4/4)
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
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)

It couldn't possibly be you making the mistake, could it?
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The Translators.

The King James Bible was not translated by any one man, or even by one group of men, but by six groups, or committees, meeting in the cities of Cambridge, Westminster, and Oxford, England. These men began their work in 1604 and completed it in 1611. In the cities of Westminster and Oxford there was one committee on the New Testament in each city. In Cambridge there was a committee on the Old Testament and one for the Aprocrypha. Yes, the original committee for the translation of the King James Bible included the Apocrypha, however, the translators did not believe the Apocrypha was inspired, but translated these non-canonical books because of their historical significance. These six committees were made up of fifty-seven men altogether, each committee having about ten men on it. I believe these fifty-seven men were superior to any man or committee of men that has translated any Bible since the translation of the King James Bible. By way of illustration let's look at the qualifications of just a few of these great men.

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.


Some people seem to think they are intellectually superior to the men who translated the King James Bible. I think that's a joke, sorry.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟171,598.00
Faith
Baptist
The Pure Cambridge edition is the one my research has led me to conclude is the word of God.

Is the Oxford KJV a satanic version? How about the scores of other editions of the KJV? Are they also satanic versions?

That is the one you need to trash in order to prove you are the superior intellect for interpreting God's word.

How can the “Pure Cambridge edition” be the word of God when it has errors in it?

Matthew 4:2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

This is illiterate gibberish. The verse should read (as it does in correct editions of the KJV),

Matthew 4:2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward
ahungered.


Matthew 23:24. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

The verse should read,

Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,691
6,107
Visit site
✟1,050,110.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It couldn't possibly be you making the mistake, could it?

Joe, we are applying your standard. You said if two versions are different, they both cannot be true.

The Cambridge edition today, and the original 1611 are not the same. So if you support the Cambridge edition, you are accepting corrections from later editors over the original KJV translators.
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
This precise edition of the King James Bible is wholly based on the received traditional text as was published by Cambridge University Press and by Collins publishers. God's Word is necessary for true salvation. The English Bible has been providentially raised up by God for a great dissemination of the true Gospel.



The Cambridge Edition (first published circa 1900) is the product of the process of textual editing that has occurred since 1611 when the Authorized Version was completed. Please note that there've been no revisions of the Bible since the authorized 1611 King James Bible was first released, only editions (such as spelling standardization). 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.



Some people refer to the Cambridge Edition as the “Pure Cambridge Edition,” but the word “pure” is improper, because the Words of the Lord are pure (Psalm 12:6-8). To refer to the Cambridge Edition as “pure” implies the the Authorized 1611 King James Bible is less pure or impure. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Authorized 1611 King James Version is pure, because God's Word is pure and the actual translation of the King James Bible has NOT been revised since 1611. So I deliberately refrain from using the word “pure” in reference to any particular edition of the King James Bible, because the original Authorized 1611 King James Bible is as 100% pure as the Cambridge Edition. My intent here is not to diminish the impeccable quality of the Cambridge Edition; but rather, to uphold the integrity, purity, inspiration and inerrancy of the Authorized 1611 Edition.



Also note that the “original” autographs of the Scriptures were in Heaven before God ever spoke the universe into existence. Psalm 119:89, "For ever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven." Thus, the originals do not exist in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic; but rather, in Heaven where they are settled forever. Before God ever created mankind, the last Word of Revelation was already recorded in Heaven. God's Words are inspired in any language. Don't let anyone discourage you by falsely claiming that the Authorized 1611 King James Bible is less than perfect. It is more than a masterpiece, or the best translation, it is God's perfect and inspired Word! The Cambridge Edition is simply a standardized English copy of God's perfect Word, which He wondrously gave to us in 1611.



The King James Bible is inspired and preserved. God's Word is inspired into whatever language it is translated. God never promised to inspire a language; but rather, His Words (Psalm 12:6-8). The Words of the Lord are pure. Those pseudo-scholars today who claim that only the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic are inspired are WRONG, because God's Word is inspired in English or any other language it is translated into. God's Words were given by inspiration. God promised to preserve those inspired Words and they will always be inspired.



¶ ARE EARLIER EDITIONS OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE INERRANT?

Yes, absolutely! A typographical error is not actually an "error" in the Bible, because it is only a presentation error. The fact is that any KJB (of the proper tradition) is still presenting the same text and translation that is correct. The issue is not about "errancy," but about presentation.



Since we do have an inerrant text and translation, yet there are many differing editions of it, we also want to have the edition which has the standard spelling. As a whole, the Cambridge Edition is this.



Use this checklist to ascertain whether the Bible is a Cambridge Edition:



1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2

2. “sin” not “sins” in 2nd Chronicles 33:19

3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4

4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16

5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24

6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16

7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1

8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39

9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73

10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12

11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28

12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1st John 5:8
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,691
6,107
Visit site
✟1,050,110.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The website Joe quoted said:
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.


Joe, adding "of God" to the text is not just a spelling problem.

Today's:

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

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



As you would say, it is so simple, even a child could understand. Those two are not the same.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,905
2,283
U.S.A.
✟171,598.00
Faith
Baptist
The Translators.

The King James Bible was not translated by any one man, or even by one group of men, but by six groups, or committees, meeting in the cities of Cambridge, Westminster, and Oxford, England. These men began their work in 1604 and completed it in 1611. In the cities of Westminster and Oxford there was one committee on the New Testament in each city. In Cambridge there was a committee on the Old Testament and one for the Aprocrypha. Yes, the original committee for the translation of the King James Bible included the Apocrypha, however, the translators did not believe the Apocrypha was inspired, but translated these non-canonical books because of their historical significance. These six committees were made up of fifty-seven men altogether, each committee having about ten men on it. I believe these fifty-seven men were superior to any man or committee of men that has translated any Bible since the translation of the King James Bible. By way of illustration let's look at the qualifications of just a few of these great men.

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.


Some people seem to think they are intellectually superior to the men who translated the King James Bible. I think that's a joke, sorry.

Using only the resources that I have today in my personal library, I could produce a far more accurate translation of the Bible than the KJV—and so could hundreds of thousands of other men using the same resources. It is not because we are necessarily “intellectually superior” to the translators of the KJV; it is because of the resources that I have today in my personal library. However, I could not produce as good of a translation of the Bible as the NRSV even if I had the far superior resources that its translators and editors had available to them.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,691
6,107
Visit site
✟1,050,110.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Today's:

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

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

Today's adds the word "godly" when describing "edifyng". That is not just a spelling issue Joe.
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Using only the resources that I have today in my personal library, I could produce a far more accurate translation of the Bible than the KJV—and so could hundreds of thousands of other men using the same resources. It is not because we are necessarily “intellectually superior” to the translators of the KJV; it is because of the resources that I have today in my personal library. However, I could not produce as good of a translation of the Bible as the NRSV even if I had the far superior resources that its translators and editors had available to them.

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.
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single

Today's:

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

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

Today's adds the word "godly" when describing "edifyng". That is not just a spelling issue Joe.

I don't know what Today's is. I stick with the Cambridge edition.

I don't go for changes because the Bible says "meddle not with them that are given to change"
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,691
6,107
Visit site
✟1,050,110.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't know what Today's is. I stick with the Cambridge edition.

I don't go for changes because the Bible says "meddle not with them that are given to change"

Very well! Post your Cambridge edition and we can compare to the 1611. We would certainly want to be accurate.
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Joe, adding "of God" to the text is not just a spelling problem.

Today's:

12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

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



As you would say, it is so simple, even a child could understand. Those two are not the same.

You are grasping at straws. See post 571.
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Very well! Post your Cambridge edition and we can compare to the 1611. We would certainly want to be accurate.

Read Post 571...you seem to be ignoring it while you grasp at straws and expect me to follow your wild rabbit trails?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,691
6,107
Visit site
✟1,050,110.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You are grasping at straws. See post 571.


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.
 
Upvote 0

SaintJoeNow

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2015
1,255
345
USA
✟3,201.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Very well! Post your Cambridge edition and we can compare to the 1611. We would certainly want to be accurate.


See post 571. It answers your attempt to take me down a rabbit trail before you start running on it.

You do not want to be accurate, you want to be the God-gifted translator of His word who judges all the others as intellectually inferior if you don't like them.

I claim nothing more than child like faith. God said it, I believe it, and I thank Him for saying it in my own language.

You can make a carreer out of trying to trash the King James Bible, but you will never convince me it is not my Fathers word and cannot be changed.

I'm sorry your Father did not make Himself clear to you so you would not feel you need to question His word.
 
Upvote 0