| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Bible John" |
| Date: |
01 Oct 2005 11:40:23 PM |
| Object: |
KJV Only people |
I do not understand why some believe that the KJV is the only Holy
Translation, yet CANNOT answer these questions.
#1 Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last
being in 1769.
#2 What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611
there was no Bible.
#3 Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
#4 Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original
1611 version contained the apocrypha?
#5 If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV
advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language,
for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
--
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible/
2Tim. 4:2 Preach the Word; be prepared in
season and out of season; correct, rebuke
and encourage ‹ with great patience and
careful instruction.
AIM-Crucifyself03
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: KJV Only people |
02 Oct 2005 12:05:33 AM |
|
|
I do not understand why some believe that the KJV is the only Holy
Translation, yet CANNOT answer these questions.
I'm not a KJV-onlyist, but I've seen a couple of debates,
so perhaps I can offer you those answers.
#1 Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last
being in 1769.
All of them.
#2 What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611
there was no Bible.
I don't believe they "worship" the KJV -- they only maintain it is the
only inerrant bible that is intact. Do you believe any form of the
bible is inerrant? Is that tantamount to worshipping it?
One of the KVJs are recommended, as they are inerrant.
#3 Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
Yes.
#4 Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original
1611 version contained the apocrypha?
They don't reject the apocrypha, but rather exclude it from the Bible
proper, just as was done in the 1611 edition.
#5 If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV
advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language,
for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
God does not always give his word in one language. Since your premise
is bad, there's no need to respond to any conclusion drawn from it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: KJV Only people |
02 Oct 2005 03:21:41 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 05:05:33 GMT, Grinder <grinder@no.spam.maam.com>
wrote:
copyright 2005 John Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this
can be used elsewhere without expressed written consent of the author.
I do not understand why some believe that the KJV is the only Holy
Translation, yet CANNOT answer these questions.
I'm not a KJV-onlyist, but I've seen a couple of debates,
so perhaps I can offer you those answers.
#1 Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last
being in 1769.
All of them.
#2 What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611
there was no Bible.
I don't believe they "worship" the KJV -- they only maintain it is the
only inerrant bible that is intact. Do you believe any form of the
bible is inerrant? Is that tantamount to worshipping it?
One of the KVJs are recommended, as they are inerrant.
#3 Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
Yes.
Actually, that is not entirely true.
The first time I ever heard "Well, if the KJV was good enough for
Jesus, and Peter and Paul and the other apostles, it's good enough for
me!" it came from a "Pentecostal" brother. I asked him where he got
THAT notion. He said, "My pastor, Pastor Bob!"
There actually are "pastors" who are teaching that rubbish, and
"sheep" who believe it.
God bless!
john w
#4 Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original
1611 version contained the apocrypha?
They don't reject the apocrypha, but rather exclude it from the Bible
proper, just as was done in the 1611 edition.
#5 If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV
advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language,
for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
God does not always give his word in one language. Since your premise
is bad, there's no need to respond to any conclusion drawn from it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl Walther" |
|
| Title: Re: KJV Only people |
03 Oct 2005 06:50:55 PM |
|
|
Bible John wrote:
I do not understand why some believe that the KJV is the only Holy
Translation, yet CANNOT answer these questions.
#1 Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last
being in 1769.
#2 What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611
there was no Bible.
#3 Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
#4 Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original
1611 version contained the apocrypha?
#5 If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV
advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language,
for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
Not to be picky, but Luke and Acts are not written in koine. They are
written ic classical Greek. THe language Luke wrote in.
--Carl
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc: The absent-minded-professor!" |
|
| Title: Re: KJV Only people |
04 Oct 2005 09:31:19 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 21:40:23 -0700, Bible John
<john.doggett@x-files.gov> done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in
these here little old Usenet News'FROUPS:
I do not understand why some believe that the KJV is the only Holy
Translation, yet CANNOT answer these questions.
#1 Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last
being in 1769.
#2 What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611
there was no Bible.
#3 Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
#4 Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original
1611 version contained the apocrypha?
#5 If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV
advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language,
for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
Let's face it- the Bible has been re-written so many times that today,
it is hard to tell WHAT of it is inspired writing anymore.
'This' denomination argues against 'that' denomination over what is
and is not considered inspired writing.
When it all boils down, why not simply consider what we read, and how
we benefit FROM what we read from within its pages?
I know I have read numerous different versions, and including
versions containing the Apocrypha, which many of us do not consider
'inspired' writing, but more a geographical, historical writing.
Nevertheless, I still consider my Christianity is growing because of
reading so many different versions of the Bible.
I post in KJV most of the time, but also have other versions to post
with as well,m or can copy verses from a version I don't have through
an online Bible.
But instead of people arguing over which version is the best, or which
version to use, wouldn't we all be better to ask ourselves what
message God can give us each time we read the Bible? I personally
think so . :o)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stone" |
|
| Title: Re: KJV Only people |
05 Oct 2005 08:30:21 PM |
|
|
Doc: The absent-minded-professor! wrote in message ...
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 21:40:23 -0700, Bible John
<john.doggett@x-files.gov> done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in
these here little old Usenet News'FROUPS:
I do not understand why some believe that the KJV is the only Holy
Translation, yet CANNOT answer these questions.
#1 Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last
being in 1769.
The KJV has never been revised, you are mistaken. There are no revisions:
Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?
ANSWER: No. There have been several editions but no revisions.
EXPLANATION: One of the last ditch defenses of a badly shaken critic of the
Authorized version 1611 is the "revision hoax." They run to this seeming
fortress in an attempt to stave off ultimate defeat by their opponents who
overwhelm their feeble arguments with historic facts, manuscript evidence
and to obvious workings of the Holy Spirit. Once inside, they turn
self-confidently to their foes and ask with a smug look, "Which King James
do you use, the 1611 or the 1629 or perhaps the 1769?" The shock of this
attack and the momentary confusion that results usually allows them time to
make good their escape.
Unfortunately, upon entering their castle and closing the door behind them
they find that their fortress has been systematically torn down, brick by
brick, by a man named Dr. David F. Reagan.
Dr. Reagan pastors the Trinity Baptist Temple in Knoxville, Tennessee. He
has written a devastating expose on the early editions of the King James
Bible entitled, "The King James Version of 1611--the Myth of Early
Revisions."
Dr. Reagan has done an excellent job of destroying the last stronghold of
Bible critics. I see neither a way, nor a reason to try to improve on his
finding. So I have secured his permission to reproduce his pamphlet in its
entirety:
THE KING JAMES VERSION OF 1611
THE MYTH OF EARLY REVISIONS
Introduction
Men have been "handling the word of God deceitfully" (II Cor. 4:2) ever
since the devil first taught Eve how. From Cain to Balaam, from Jehudi to
the scribes and Pharisees, from the Dark Age theologians to present-day
scholars, the living words of the Almighty God have been prime targets for
man's corrupting hand. The attacks on the Word of God are threefold:
addition, subtraction, and substitution. From Adam's day to the computer
age, the strategies have remained the same. There is nothing new under the
sun.
One attack which is receiving quite a bit of attention these days is a
direct attack on the Word of God as preserved in the English language: the
King James Version of 1611. The attack referred to is the myth which claims
that since the King James Version has already been revised four times, there
should be and can be no valid objection to other revisions. This myth was
used by the English Revisers of 1881 and has been revived in recent years by
Fundamentalist scholars hoping to sell their latest translation. This book
is given as an answer to this attack. The purpose of the material is not to
convince those who would deny this preservation but to strengthen the faith
of those who already believe in a preserved English Bible.
One major question often arises in any attack such as this. How far should
we go in answering the critics? If we were to attempt to answer every
shallow objection to the infallibility of the English Bible, we would never
be able to accomplish anything else. Sanity must prevail somewhere. As
always, the answer is in God's Word. Proverbs 26:4-5 states: Answer not a
food according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool
according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Obviously, there are times when a foolish query should be ignored and times
when it should be met with an answer. If to answer the attack will make you
look as foolish as the attacker, then the best answer is to ignore the
question. For instance, if you are told that the Bible cannot be infallible
because so-and-so believes that it is, and he is divorced, then you may
safely assume that silence is the best answer. On the other hand, there are
often questions and problems that, if true, would be serious. To ignore
these issues would be to leave the Bible attacker wise in his own conceit. I
believe that the question of revisions to the King James Version of 1611 is
a question of the second class. If the King James Version has undergone four
major revisions of its text, then to oppose further revisions on the basis
of an established English text would truly be faulty. For this reason, this
attack should and must be answered. Can the argument be answered? Certainly!
That is the purpose of this book.
I--THE PRINTING CONDITIONS OF 1611
If God did preserve His Word in the English language through the Authorized
Version of 1611 (and He did), then where is our authority for the infallible
wording? Is it in the notes of the translators? Or is it to be found in the
proof copy sent to the printers? If so, then our authority is lost because
these papers are lost. But, you say, the authority is in the first copy
which came off the printing press. Alas, that copy has also certainly
perished. In fact, if the printing of the English Bible followed the pattern
of most printing jobs, the first copy was probably discarded because of bad
quality. That leaves us with existing copies of the first printing. They are
the ones often pointed out as the standard by which all other King James
Bibles are to be compared. But are they? Can those early printers of the
first edition not be allowed to make printing errors? We need to establish
one thing from the outset. The authority for our preserved English text is
not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible
English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still
make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text
despite the weaknesses of fallible man. Now, let us look at the pressures on
a printer in the year of 1611.
Although the printing press had been invented in 1450 by Johann Gutenburg in
Germany (161 years before the 1611 printing), the equipment used by the
printer had changed very little. Printing was still very slow and difficult.
All type was set by hand, one piece at a time (that's one piece at a time
through the whole Bible), and errors were an expected part of any completed
book. Because of this difficulty and also because the 1611 printers had no
earlier editions from which to profit, the very first edition of the King
James version had a number of printing errors. As shall later be
demonstrated, these were not the sort of textual alterations which are
freely made in modern bibles. They were simple, obvious printing errors of
the sort that can still be found at times in recent editions even with all
of the advantages of modern printing. These errors do not render a Bible
useless, but they should be corrected in later editions.
The two original printings of the Authorized Version demonstrate the
difficulty of printing in 1611 without making mistakes. Both editions were
printed in Oxford. Both were printed in the same year: 1611. The same
printers did both jobs. Most likely, both editions were printed on the same
printing press. Yet, in a strict comparison of the two editions,
approximately 100 textual differences can be found. In the same vein the
King James critics can find only about 400 alleged textual alterations in
the King James Version after 375 years of printing and four so-called
revisions! Something is rotten in Scholarsville! The time has come to
examine these "revisions."
II--THE FOUR SO-CALLED REVISIONS OF THE 1611 KJV
Much of the information in this section is taken from a book by F.H.A.
Scrivener called The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its
Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. The book is as pedantic as
its title indicates. The interesting point is that Scrivener, who published
this book in 1884, was a member of the Revision Committee of 1881. He was
not a King James Bible believer, and therefore his material is not biased
toward the Authorized Version. In the section of Scrivener's book dealing
with the KJV "revisions," one initial detail is striking. The first two
so-called major revisions of the King James Bible occurred within 27 years
of the original printing. (The language must have been changing very rapidly
in those days.) The 1629 edition of the Bible printed in Cambridge is said
to have been the first revision. A revision it was not, but simply a careful
correction of earlier printing errors. Not only was this edition completed
just eighteen years after the translation, but two of the men who
participated in this printing, Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, had worked on
the original translation of the King James Version. Who better to correct
early errors than two who had worked on the original translation! Only nine
years later and in Cambridge again, another edition came out which is
supposed to have been the second major revision. Both Ward and Bois were
still alive, but it is not known if they participated at this time. But even
Scrivener, who as you remember worked on the English Revised Version of
1881, admitted that the Cambridge printers had simply reinstated words and
clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers and amended manifest errors.
According to a study which will be detailed later, 72% of the approximately
400 textual corrections in the KJV were completed by the time of the 1638
Cambridge edition, only 27 years after the original printing!
Just as the first two so-called revisions were actually two stages of one
process--the purification of early printing errors--so the last two
so-called revisions were two stages in another process--the standardization
of the spelling. These two editions were only seven years apart (1762 and
1769) with the second one completing what the first had started. But when
the scholars are numbering revisions, two sounds better than one. Very few
textual corrections were necessary at this time. The thousands of alleged
changes are spelling changes made to match the established correct forms.
These spelling changes will be discussed later. Suffice it to say at this
time that the tale of four major revisions is truly a fraud and a myth. But
you say, there are still changes whether they be few or many. What are you
going to do with the changes that are still there? Let us now examine the
character of these changes.
III--THE SO-CALLED THOUSANDS OF CHANGES
Suppose someone were to take you to a museum to see an original copy of the
King James Version. You come to the glass case where the Bible is displayed
and look down at the opened Bible through the glass. Although you are not
allowed to flip through its pages, you can readily tell that there are some
very different things about this Bible from the one you own. You can hardly
read its words, and those you can make out are spelled in odd and strange
ways. Like others before you, you leave with the impression that the King
James Version has undergone a multitude of changes since its original
printing in 1611. But beware, you have just been taken by a very clever
ploy. The differences you saw are not what they seem to be. Let's examine
the evidence.
Printing Changes
For proper examination, the changes can be divided into three kinds:
printing changes, spelling changes, and textual changes. Printing changes
will be considered first. The type style used in 1611 by the KJV translators
was the Gothic Type Style. The type style you are reading right now and are
familiar with is Roman Type. Gothic Type is sometimes called Germanic
because it originated in Germany. Remember, that is where printing was
invented. The Gothic letters were formed to resemble the hand-drawn
manuscript lettering of the Middle Ages. At first, it was the only style in
use. The Roman Type Style was invented fairly early, but many years passed
before it became the predominant style in most European countries. Gothic
continued to be used in Germany until recent years. In 1611 in England,
Roman Type was already very popular and would soon supersede the Gothic.
However, the original printers chose the Gothic Style for the KJV because it
was considered to be more beautiful and eloquent than the Roman. But the
change to Roman Type was not long in coming. In 1612, the first King James
Version using Roman Type was printed. Within a few years, all the Bibles
printed used the Roman Type Style.
Please realize that a change in type style no more alters the text of the
Bible than a change in format or type size does. However, the modern reader
who has not become familiar with Gothic can find it very difficult to
understand. Besides some general change in form, several specific letter
changes need to be observed. For instance, the Gothic "s" looks like the
Roman "s" when used as a capital letter or at the end of a word. But when it
is used as a lower case "s" at the beginning or in the middle of a word, the
letter looks like our "f." Therefore, also becomes alfo and set becomes fet.
Another variation is found in the German "v" and "u." The Gothic "v" looks
like a Roman "u" while the Gothic "u" looks like a Roman "v." This explains
why our "w" is called a double-u and not a double-v. Sound confusing? It is
until you get used to it. In the 1611 edition, love is loue, us is vs, and
ever is euer. But remember, these are not even spelling changes. They are
simply type style changes. In another instance, the Gothic "j" looks like
our "i." So Jesus becomes Iefus (notice the middle "s" changed to "f") and
joy becomes ioy. Even the Gothic "d" had the stem leaning back over the
circle in a shape resembling that of the Greek Delta. These changes account
for a large percentage of the "thousands" of changes in the KJV, yet they do
no harm whatsoever to the text. They are nothing more than a smokescreen set
up by the attackers of our English Bible.
Spelling Changes
Another kind of change found in the history of the Authorized Version are
changes of orthography or spelling. Most histories date the beginning of
Modern English around the year 1500. Therefore, by 1611 the grammatical
structure and basic vocabulary of present-day English had long been
established. However, the spelling did not stabilize at the same time. In
the 1600s spelling was according to whim. There was no such thing as correct
spelling. No standards had been established. An author often spelled the
same word several different ways, often in the same book and sometimes on
the same page. And these were the educated people. Some of you reading this
today would have found the 1600s a spelling paradise. Not until the
eighteenth century did the spelling begin to take a stable form. Therefore,
in the last half of the eighteenth century, the spelling of the King James
Version of 1611 was standardized.
What kind of spelling variations can you expect to find between your present
edition and the 1611 printing? Although every spelling difference cannot be
categorized, several characteristics are very common. Additional "e"'s were
often found at the end of the words such as feare, darke, and beare. Also,
double vowels were much more common than they are today. You would find mee,
bee, and mooued instead of me, be, and moved. Double consonants were also
much more common. What would ranne, euill, and ftarres be according to
present- day spelling? See if you can figure them out. The present-day
spellings would be ran, evil, and stars. These typographical and spelling
changes account for almost all of the so-called thousands of changes in the
King James Bible. None of them alter the text in any way. Therefore they
cannot be honestly compared with thousands of true textual changes which are
blatantly made in the modern versions.
Textual Changes
Almost all of the alleged changes have been accounted for. We now come to
the question of actual textual differences between our present editions and
that of 1611. There are some differences between the two, but they are not
the changes of a revision. They are instead the correction of early printing
errors. That this is a fact may be seen in three things: (1) the character
of the changes, (2) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible, and
(3) the time the changes were made. First, let us look at the character of
the changes made from the time of the first printing of the Authorized
English Bible. The changes from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual
are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes. They
are not textual changes made to alter the reading. In the first printing,
words were sometimes inverted. Sometimes a plural was written as singular or
vice versa. At times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few
times a word or even a phrase was omitted. The omissions were obvious and
did not have the doctrinal implications of those found in modern
translations. In fact, there is really no comparison between the corrections
made in the King James text and those proposed by the scholars of today.
F.H.A. Scrivener, in the appendix of his book, lists the variations between
the 1611 edition of the KJV and later printings. A sampling of these
corrections is given below. In order to be objective, the samples give the
first textual correction on consecutive left-hand pages of Scrivener's book.
The 1611 reading is given first; then the present reading; and finally, the
date the correction was first made.
1 this thing--this thing also (1638)
2 shalt have remained--ye shall have remained (1762)
3 Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik--of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik
(1762)
4 requite good--requite me good (1629)
5 this book of the Covenant--the book of this covenant (1629)
6 chief rulers--chief ruler (1629)
7 And Parbar--At Parbar (1638)
8 For this cause--And for this cause (1638)
9 For the king had appointed--for so the king had appointed (1629)
10 Seek good--seek God (1617)
11 The cormorant--But the cormorant (1629)
12 returned--turned (1769)
13 a fiery furnace--a burning fiery furnace (1638)
14 The crowned--Thy crowned (1629)
15 thy right doeth--thy right hand doeth (1613)
16 the wayes side--the way side (1743)
17 which was a Jew--which was a Jewess (1629)
18 the city--the city of the Damascenes (1629)
19 now and ever--both now and ever (1638)
20 which was of our father's--which was our fathers (1616)
Before your eyes are 5% of the textual changes made in the King James
Version in 375 years. Even if they were not corrections of previous errors,
they would be of no comparison to modern alterations. But they are
corrections of printing errors, and therefore no comparison is at all
possible. Look at the list for yourself and you will find only one that has
serious doctrinal implications. In fact, in an examination of Scrivener's
entire appendix, it is the only variation found by this author that could be
accused of being doctrinal. I am referring to Psalm 69:32 where the 1611
edition has "seek good" when the Bible should have read "seek God." Yet,
even with this error, two points demonstrate that this was indeed a printing
error. First, the similarity of the words "good" and "God" in spelling shows
how easily a weary typesetter could misread the proof and put the wrong word
in the text. Second, this error was so obvious that it was caught and
corrected in the year 1617, only six years after the original printing and
well before the first so-called revision. The myth that there are several
major revisions to the 1611 KJV should be getting clearer. But there is
more.
Not only does the character of the changes show them to be printing errors,
so does their frequency. Fundamentalist scholars refer to the thousands of
revisions made to the 1611 as if they were on a par with the recent bible
versions. They are not. The overwhelming majority of them are either type
style or spelling changes. The few which do remain are clearly corrections
of printing errors made because of the tediousness involved in the early
printing process. The sample list given above will demonstrate just how
careful Scrivener was in listing all the variations. Yet, even with this
great care, only approximately 400 variations are named between the 1611
edition and modern copies. Remember that there were 100 variations between
the first two Oxford editions which were both printed in 1611. Since there
are almost 1200 chapters in the Bible, the average variation per chapter
(after 375 years) is one third, i.e., one correction per every three
chapters. These are changes such as "chief rulers" to "chief ruler" and "And
Parbar" to "At Parbar." But there is yet one more evidence that these
variations are simply corrected printing errors: the early date at which
they were corrected.
The character and frequency of the textual changes clearly separate them
from modern alterations. But the time the changes were made settles the
issue absolutely. The great majority of the 400 corrections were made within
a few years of the original printing. Take, for example, our earlier
sampling. Of the twenty corrections listed, one was made in 1613, one in
1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in 1762,
and one in 1769. That means that 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made
within twenty-seven years of the 1611 printing. That is hardly the long
drawn out series of revisions the scholars would have you to believe. In
another study made by examining every other page of Scrivener's appendix in
detail, 72% of the textual corrections were made by 1638. There is no
"revision" issue.
The character of the textual changes is that of obvious errors. The
frequency of the textual changes is sparse, occurring only once per three
chapters. The chronology of the textual changes is early with about three
fourths of them occurring within twenty-seven years of the first printing.
All of these details establish the fact that there were no true revisions in
the sense of updating the language or correcting translation errors. There
were only editions which corrected early typographical errors. Our source of
authority for the exact wording of the 1611 Authorized Version is not in the
existing copies of the first printing. Our source of authority for the exact
wording of our English Bible is in the preserving power of Almighty God.
Just as God did not leave us the original autographs to fight and squabble
over, so He did not see fit to leave us the proof copy of the translation.
Our authority is in the hand of God as always. You can praise the Lord for
that!
IV--CHANGES IN THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES
An in-depth study of the changes made in the book of Ecclesiastes would help
to illustrate the principles stated above. The author is grateful to Dr.
David Reese of Millbrook, Alabama, for his work in this area. By comparing a
1611 reprint of the original edition put out by Thomas Nelson & Sons with
recent printing of the King James Version, Dr. Reese was able to locate four
variations in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then
the text of the Thomas Nelson 1611 reprint. This is followed by the reading
of the present editions of the 1611 KJV and the date the change was made:
1 1:5 the place--his place (1638)
2 2:16 shall be--shall all be (1629)
3 8:17 out, yea further--out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther (1629)
4 11:17 thing is it--thing it is (?)
Several things should be noted about these changes. The last variation
("thing is it" to "thing it is") is not mentioned by Scrivener who was a
very careful and accurate scholar. Therefore, this change may be a misprint
in the Thomas Nelson reprint. That would be interesting. The corrected
omission in chapter eight is one of the longest corrections of the original
printing. But notice that it was corrected in 1629. The frequency of
printing errors is average (four errors in twelve chapters). But the most
outstanding fact is that the entire book of Ecclesiastes reads exactly like
our present editions without even printing errors by the year 1638. That's
more than 350 years ago. By that time, the Bible was being printed in Roman
type. Therefore, all (and I mean all) that has changed in 350 years in the
book of Ecclesiastes is that the spelling has been standardized! As stated
before, the main purpose of the 1629 and 1638 Cambridge editions was the
correction of earlier printing errors. And the main purpose of the 1762 and
1769 editions was the standardization of spelling.
V--THE SO-CALLED JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER REVISIONS
Maybe now you see that the King James Version of 1611 has not been revised
but only corrected. But why does it make that much difference? Although
there are several reasons why this issue is important, the most pressing one
is that fundamentalist scholars are using this myth of past revisions to
justify their own tampering with the text. The editors of the New King James
Version have probably been the worst in recent years to use this propaganda
ploy. In the preface of the New King James they have stated, "For nearly
four hundred years, and throughout several revisions of its English form,
the King James Bible has been deeply revered among the English- speaking
peoples of the world." In the midst of their flowery rhetoric, they strongly
imply that their edition is only a continuation of the revisions that have
been going on for the past 375 years. This implication, which has been
stated directly by others, could not be more false. To prove this point, we
will go back to the book of Ecclesiastes.
An examination of the first chapter in Ecclesiastes in the New King James
Version reveals approximately 50 changes from our present edition. In order
to be fair, spelling changes (cometh to comes; labour to labor, etc.) were
not included in this count. That means there are probably about 600
alterations in the book of Ecclesiastes and approximately 60,000 changes in
the entire Bible. If you accuse me of including every recognizable change,
you are correct. But I am only counting the sort of changes which were
identified in analyzing the 1611 King James. That's only fair. Still, the
number of changes is especially baffling for a version which claims to be an
updating in the same vein as earlier revisions. According to the
fundamentalist scholar, the New King James is only a fifth in a series of
revisions. Then pray tell me how four "revisions" and 375 years brought only
400 changes while the fifth revision brought about 60,000 additional
changes? That means that the fifth revision made 150 times more changes than
the total number of changes in the first four! That's preposterous!
Not only is the frequency of the changes unbelievable, but the character of
the alterations is serious. Although many of the alterations seem harmless
enough at first glance, many are much more serious. The editors of the New
King James Version were sly enough not to alter the most serious blunders of
the modern bibles. Yet, they were not afraid to change the reading in those
places that are unfamiliar to the average fundamentalist. In these areas,
the New King James Version is dangerous. Below are some of the more harmful
alterations made in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first;
then the reading as found in the King James Version; and last, the reading
as found in the New King James Version.
1:13 sore travail; grievous task
1:14 vexation of spirit; grasping for the wind
1:16 my heart had great experience of wisdom; My heart has understood great
wisdom
2:3 to give myself unto; to gratify my flesh with
2:3 acquainting; guiding
2:21 equity; skill
3:10 the travail, which God hath given; the God-given task
3:11 the world; eternity
3:18 that might manifest them; God tests them
3:18 they themselves are beasts; they themselves are like beasts
3:22 portion; heritage
4:4 right work; skillful work
5:1 Keep thy foot; Walk prudently
5:6 the angel; the messenger of God
5:8 he that is higher than the highest; high official
5:20 God answereth him; God keeps him busy
6:3 untimely birth; stillborn child
7:29 inventions; schemes
8:1 boldness; sternness
8:10 the place of the holy; the place of holiness
10:1 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a
stinking savour; Dead flies putrefy the perfumer's ointment
10:10 If the iron be blunt; If the ax is dull
10:10 wisdom is profitable to direct; wisdom brings success
12:9 gave good heed; pondered
12:11 the masters of assemblies; scholars
This is only a sampling of the changes in the book, but notice what is done.
Equity, which is a trait of godliness, becomes skill (2:21). The world
becomes eternity (3:11). Man without God is no longer a beast but just like
a beast (3:18). The clear reference to deity in Ecclesiastes 5:8 ("he that
is higher than the highest") is successfully removed ("higher official").
But since success is what wisdom is supposed to bring us (10:10), this must
be progress. At least God is keeping the scholars busy (5:20). Probably the
most revealing of the above mentioned changes is the last one listed where
"the masters of assemblies" become "scholars." According to the New King
James, "the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one
Shepherd." The masters of assemblies are replaced by the scholars who become
the source of the Shepherd's words. That is what these scholars would like
us to think, but it is not true.
In conclusion, the New King James is not a revision in the vein of former
revisions of the King James Version. It is instead an entirely new
translation. As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this book is not
to convince those who use the other versions. The purpose of this book is to
expose a fallacious argument that has been circulating in fundamentalist
circles for what it is: an overblown myth. That is, the myth that the New
King James Version and others like it are nothing more than a continuation
of revisions which have periodically been made to the King James Version
since 1611. There is one problem with this theory. There are no such
revisions.
The King James Bible of 1611 has not undergone four (or any) major
revisions. Therefore, the New King James Version is not a continuation of
what has gone on before. It should in fact be called the Thomas Nelson
Version. They hold the copyright. The King James Version we have today has
not been revised but purified. We still have no reason to doubt that the
Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the
English language. The authority for its veracity lies not in the first
printing of the King James Version in 1611, or in the character of King
James I, or in the scholarship of the 1611 translators, or in the literary
accomplishments of Elizabethan England, or even in the Greek Received Text.
Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the
power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have
His Word.
Individual copies of Dr. Reagan's excellent pamphlet can be obtained by
sending one dollar to:
Trinity Baptist Temple Bookstore
5709 N. Broadway
Knoxville, Tennessee 37918
(615) 688-0780
From The Answer Book, A Helpbook for Christians by Dr. Samuel Gipp.
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvupdt.html
#2 What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611
there was no Bible.
The KJV, Luther's German bible, the Tyndale bible, are all translated from
the real unaltered text of the New and Old Testament. The byzantine (also
called textus receptus) is the real unaltered text of the New Testament and
the Massoretic text of the Jews is the real unaltered Old Testament. These
were recopied word for word and handed down through generations. The modern
versions have a corrupted text from Alexandria Egypt mixed in with them. The
words were changed in the 4th century. 5% of the modern versions has the
words changed in important places and is not the original writings of the
original authors in those places.
Any bible that is an accurate translation of the real unaltered texts, like
the KJV is, is the real bible.
God only wrote one bible, by the hands of the inspired writers that He
chose.
[You can't have 200 different bibles, saying 200 different things, and they
all claim to be written by the same authors. Some of that is fake and is
forgery. The market is full of fake bibles with the words changed.]
#3 Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
The apostle Paul used the Old Testament of the Jews, which was handed down
word for word and later compiled by the massoretes, and came to be called
the massoretic text. The KJV is translated from this text, accurately.
ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA Masoretic text
(from Hebrew masoreth, "tradition"), traditional Hebrew text of the Jewish
Bible, meticulously assembled and codified, and supplied with diacritical
marks to enable correct pronunciation. This monumental work was begun around
the 6th century AD and completed in the 10th by scholars at Talmudic
academies
in Babylonia and Palestine, in an effort to reproduce, as far as possible,
the
original text of the Hebrew Old Testament. Their intention was not to
interpret the meaning of the Scriptures but to transmit to future
generations
the authentic Word of God. To this end they gathered manuscripts and
whatever
oral traditions were available to them.
The Masoretic text that resulted from their work shows that every word and
every letter was checked with care. In Hebrew or Aramaic, they called
attention to strange spellings and unusual grammar and noted discrepancies
in
various texts. Since texts traditionally omitted vowels in writing, the
Masoretes introduced vowel signs to guarantee correct pronunciation. Among
the
various systems of vocalization that were invented, the one fashioned in the
city of Tiberias, Galilee, eventually gained ascendancy. In addition, signs
for stress and pause were added to the text to facilitate public reading of
the Scriptures in the synagogue.
When the final codification of each section was complete, the Masoretes not
only counted and noted down the total number of verses, words, and letters
in
the text but further indicated which verse, which word, and which letter
marked the centre of the text. In this way any future emendation could be
detected. The rigorous care given the Masoretic text in its preparation is
credited for the remarkable consistency found in Old Testament Hebrew texts
since that time. The Masoretic work enjoyed an absolute monopoly for 600
years, and experts have been astonished at the fidelity of the earliest
printed version (late 15th century) to the earliest surviving codices (late
9th century). The Masoretic text is universally accepted as the authentic
Hebrew Bible.
The text that Paul used for the Old Testament is the King James text.- The
KJV was later translated from these same words.
#4 Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original
1611 version contained the apocrypha?
http://watch.pair.com/apocrypha.html
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm
What is the Apocrypha anyway?
The Apocrypha is a collection of uninspired, spurious books written by
various individuals. The Catholic religion considers these books as
scripture just like a Bible-believer believes that our 66 books are the word
of God, i.e., Genesis to Revelation. We are going to examine some verses
from the Apocrypha later in our discussion.
At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the
following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books
together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and
venerated as the Word of God. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and
Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic. In
reality, the Bible is the last source of truth for Catholics. Catholic
doctrine comes primarily from tradition stuck together with a few Bible
names. In my reading of Catholic materials, I find notes like this: "You
have to keep the Bible in perspective." Catholics do not believe that the
Bible is God's complete revelation for man.
The Roman Catholic Apocrypha
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel
Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:
First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
Susanna*
*A reader says: "Susanna is in the Roman Catholic canon. It is Daniel 13."
Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.
1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which
was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the
Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior
to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the
apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the
first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking
about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the
"canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of
Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in
three different places.
6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as
prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken
from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a
sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they
might be delivered from sin.
Salvation by works:
Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh
atonement for sin.
Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms
doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.
Magic:
Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be
driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and
the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And
whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and
magical incantation.
8. No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old
Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
9. Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only
valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language,
opinions and history of the East.
Wasn't the Apocrypha in the King James?
The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God.
As books of some historical value, the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the
Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed
the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a
statement:
"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy
Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read."
King James Version Defended page 98.
In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James
said this about the Apocrypha:
"As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said
before)..."
King James Charles Stewart
Basilicon Doron, page 13
Not only this, but the sixth article of the Thirty-nine Articles of the
Church of England (1571 edition) states:
In the name of the Holy, we do vnderstande those canonical bookes of the
olde and newe Testament, of whose authoritie was never any doubt in the
Churche...
Now concerning the apocrypha it states,
And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche doth reade for
example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them
to establish any doctrene [sic].
Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977,
Vol. III, pp. 489-491.
The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629.
Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Apocrypha
from the Bible and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed.
From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all
English Bibles--Catholic Bibles and some pulpit Bibles excepted.
Not even all Catholic "Church Fathers" believed the Apocrypha was scripture.
Not that this really means anything. The truth is not validated by the
false. Nevertheless, this may be of interest to some... Jerome (340-420)
rejected the Apocrypha:
"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does
not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and
Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative
confirmation of doctrine."
Jerome
Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon
According to Edward Hills in The King James Version Defended p. 98 other
famous Catholics with this viewpoint include Augustine (354-430 who at first
defended the Apocrypha as canonical), Pope Gregory the Great (540-604),
Cardinal Ximenes, and Cardinal Cajetan.
There are other spurious books.
These include the Pseudepigrapha which contains Enoch, Michael the
Archangel, and Jannes and Jambres. Many of these books falsely claim to have
been written by various Old Testament patriarchs. They were composed between
200 B.C. and 100 A.D. There are lots of these spurious books like The
Assumption of Moses, Apocalypse of Elijah, and Ascension of Isaiah.
Concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, there may be some information in them that
parallels the Masoretic Text, but there are fables in them too. I went to
see the scrolls a few years ago with great expectation but found a bunch of
fables. The best defense against error in any form (fake Bibles and
religions) is a solid knowledge of your King James Bible. If you read it,
forgeries become readily apparent.
#5 If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV
advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language,
for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
Let's face it- the Bible has been re-written so many times that today,
it is hard to tell WHAT of it is inspired writing anymore.
'This' denomination argues against 'that' denomination over what is
and is not considered inspired writing.
When it all boils down, why not simply consider what we read, and how
we benefit FROM what we read from within its pages?
I know I have read numerous different versions, and including
versions containing the Apocrypha, which many of us do not consider
'inspired' writing, but more a geographical, historical writing.
Nevertheless, I still consider my Christianity is growing because of
reading so many different versions of the Bible.
I post in KJV most of the time, but also have other versions to post
with as well,m or can copy verses from a version I don't have through
an online Bible.
But instead of people arguing over which version is the best, or which
version to use, wouldn't we all be better to ask ourselves what
message God can give us each time we read the Bible? I personally
think so . :o)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: KJV Only people |
05 Oct 2005 11:06:34 PM |
|
|
On 6 Oct 2005 01:30:21 GMT, "stone"
<antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com> spake thusly:
Doc: The absent-minded-professor! wrote in message ...
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 21:40:23 -0700, Bible John
<john.doggett@x-files.gov> done went and wrote as Gospel Truth in
these here little old Usenet News'FROUPS:
I do not understand why some believe that the KJV is the only Holy
Translation, yet CANNOT answer these questions.
#1 Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last
being in 1769.
The KJV has never been revised, you are mistaken. There are no revisions:
Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?
ANSWER: No. There have been several editions but no revisions.
Ah yes, technically that is true, since "revisions"
involve a lot more than correcting spelling mistakes,
or a word wrongly used by mistake. :) Very good
point to note! :)
EXPLANATION: One of the last ditch defenses
of a badly shaken critic of the Authorized version
1611 is the "revision hoax."
The 1611 had a lot of mistakes in it. Nothing that
affected doctrine of course. Note that I didn't say,
major mistakes". :) Just spelling, or a word got
inserted in the wrong placer, because the printer
should have been more alert, etc.. :)
And while many claim to be reading the 1611,
they are actually reading a later edition. For
example, unless you see the letter "s" looking
like an "f" in your text, there is zero chance
that you are reading a 1611 text. :) Most people
don't realize this. :)
Personally, I am a big KJV fan. It is an extremely
excellent translation, that like all translations, has
some mistakes (using "Hell" for "Hades" when the
Greek word is indeed, transliterated, "Hades"),
but nothing that affects the soul and frankly, let's
be honest... How many times do we see the KJV
correcting the other "versions"? LOTS!!! Even
in minute details. And how can we be sure of this?
Very simple. Because when we go back to the
Greek of the MT/TR, we find that the others left out
some words and that those words DO change the
thought of the original passage!
Let me provide an example, if I may...
"And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God,
cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give
his angels charge concerning thee: and in their
hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time
thou dash thy foot against a stone."
- Matthew 4:6 [KJV]
Now let's look at another one...
"and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw
yourself down, for it is written, 'He will put his
angels in charge of you.' and, 'On their hands they
will bear you up, so that you don't dash your foot
against a stone.' " - Matthew 4:6 [WEB]
Now you, as a good Bible student, probably already
caught this, but has anyone else noticed the
difference?
You se, in the WEB, Satan was accurately quoting
the passage (with some paraphrase, which the WEB
does do).
But notice the KJV reveals how Satan ADDED to
the word of God, with the phrase, "at any time".
Thus, we see that in the KJV (which has the words
reflected in the original Greek of the MT/TR, instead
of the corrupt Alexandrian Text), that Satan was trying
to convince Jesus not that He could just fall and that
God could catch Him, which was true, but rather, that
Satan was trying to tell Jesus that AT ANY TIME He
could so this, meaning that He could tempt the Lord!
NOW when you read Jesus' response, it makes SO
MUCH MORE SENSE in the KJV, when Jesus said...
"Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt
not tempt the Lord thy God." - Matthew 4:7
People don't realize just how important those three
word are!
The KJV is translated by experts, who spoke, read
and understood fluently, an average of 11 languages
each! And the head of the committee, did the same
with 47 languages!!! And he was an incredibly well
respected instructor of both the Hebrew and the Greek!
These people knew what they were doing and were
blessed by God to do their work!!!
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree;
he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Those that
are planted in the house of Jehovah shall flourish
in the courts of our God." - Psalm 92:12-13
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: KJV Only people |
05 Oct 2005 06:14:13 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:31:19 -0400, "Doc: The
absent-minded-professor!" <Doc@Watson.yup> spake
thusly:
I post in KJV most of the time, but also have other versions to post
with as well,m or can copy verses from a version I don't have through
an online Bible.
I don't use versions based on the corrupt
Alexandrian Text.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
"There is therefore now no condemnation
to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk
not according to the flesh but according
to the Spirit." - Romans 8:1
.
|
|
|
| User: "DOC WATSON docwatson@yup" |
|
| Title: Re: KJV Only people |
05 Oct 2005 09:44:48 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:14:13 GMT, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> said the following funny
stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:31:19 -0400, "Doc: The
absent-minded-professor!" <Doc@Watson.yup> spake
thusly:
I post in KJV most of the time, but also have other versions to post
with as well,m or can copy verses from a version I don't have through
an online Bible.
I don't use versions based on the corrupt
Alexandrian Text.
Personally, I find the different versions interesting in that I can
learn something from many of them.
Mind you, there are some I would not copy from, point blank because
they alter the Scriptures to have entirely a different meaning....
I also enjoy working with the Strong's Concordance- huge book, and it
contains a lot of very valuable information! :o)
However, my comprehension of Greek and Hebrew is poor, so I would sure
love to get some information on that- as well as Latin- as there are
some things I would love to determine in that language...
--
Confucious say: "Don't judge people by their relatives!"
Sign in feudin' homestead: "Friends Welcome. Relatives by Appointment.!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: KJV Only people |
05 Oct 2005 10:21:07 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 10:44:48 -0400, DOC WATSON
<docwatson@yup> spake thusly:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:14:13 GMT, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> said the following funny
stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 22:31:19 -0400, "Doc: The
absent-minded-professor!" <Doc@Watson.yup> spake
thusly:
I post in KJV most of the time, but also have other versions to post
with as well,m or can copy verses from a version I don't have through
an online Bible.
I don't use versions based on the corrupt
Alexandrian Text.
Personally, I find the different versions interesting in that I can
learn something from many of them.
There is more than one version that is based on
the proper texts.
Mind you, there are some I would not copy from, point blank because
they alter the Scriptures to have entirely a different meaning....
And those I refuse to even read. What motivation
could I have for reading a Bible that I know has
been perverted?
I also enjoy working with the Strong's Concordance- huge book, and it
contains a lot of very valuable information! :o)
Yes and it is keyed to the KJV.
However, my comprehension of Greek and Hebrew is poor, so I would sure
love to get some information on that- as well as Latin- as there are
some things I would love to determine in that language...
There is more to it than just looking up words.
Inflections, tenses, etc..
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree;
he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Those that
are planted in the house of Jehovah shall flourish
in the courts of our God." - Psalm 92:12-13
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: KJV Only people |
05 Oct 2005 12:25:54 PM |
|
|
Doc Watson wrote:
Personally, I find the different versions interesting
in that I can learn something from many of them.
Pastor Dave wrote:
What motivation could I have for reading a Bible that
I know has been perverted?
By joining two warped boards together, in opposition, you can achieve a
truer line?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DOC WATSON docwatson@yup" |
|
| Title: Re: KJV Only people |
05 Oct 2005 12:20:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:21:07 GMT, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> said the following funny
stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
However, my comprehension of Greek and Hebrew is poor, so I would sure
love to get some information on that- as well as Latin- as there are
some things I would love to determine in that language...
There is more to it than just looking up words.
Inflections, tenses, etc..
Yes, I know there is Dave - which is WHY I would like to find out more
about it...
--
Confucious say: "Don't judge people by their relatives!"
Sign in feudin' homestead: "Friends Welcome. Relatives by Appointment.!"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DOC WATSON docwatson@yup" |
|
| Title: Re: KJV Only people |
05 Oct 2005 12:20:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:21:07 GMT, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> said the following funny
stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
And those I refuse to even read. What motivation
could I have for reading a Bible that I know has
been perverted?
To discern those verses which have been purposely disfigured....
To possibly help someone else understand the truth instead of made-up
Scriptures... to identify the fakes---- just a few reasons!
--
Confucious say: "Don't judge people by their relatives!"
Sign in feudin' homestead: "Friends Welcome. Relatives by Appointment.!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: KJV Only people |
05 Oct 2005 12:25:37 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 13:20:10 -0400, DOC WATSON
<docwatson@yup> spake thusly:
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:21:07 GMT, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> said the following funny
stuff in this here little old new 'froup:
And those I refuse to even read. What motivation
could I have for reading a Bible that I know has
been perverted?
To discern those verses which have been purposely disfigured....
To possibly help someone else understand the truth instead of made-up
Scriptures... to identify the fakes---- just a few reasons!
Already did that. :) I thought you meant in a general
reading context.
--
Pastor Dave
1st Century Church of Christ
"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree;
he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Those that
are planted in the house of Jehovah shall flourish
in the courts of our God." - Psalm 92:12-13
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
