data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d4a02/d4a0242b3d1d4ec6d6af2055ff037ad6d71769ba" alt="Old"
03-25-2007, 12:18 AM
|
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6247f/6247fe4c034015d04ccc46221adc1f319bd9fff7" alt="tv1a's Avatar" |
God's Son
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,743
|
|
Why have the KJV Purists Hid this Information?
We were discussing in my college Bible class the different Bible translations and the whys and whens to use them. During the lecture, the professor said the 1611 KJV is not even the original translation. He said there were hundreds of different KJV's translations... Some estimate as high as 700 different KJV translations. Some experts have gone as far as saying the original KJV translation never made it to the printer for publication.... The following is one of the resources I found to back up the claim...
Quote:
"According to a pamphlet published in 1660, it was, five years previously, in the possession of the King's printers. It has not since been heard of. The Translator's Address to the Reader manuscript is said to be preserved in the Bodleian Library, Oxford." — [from McClintock-Strong Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol 1, pg. 562 (1871)].
According to the above source, the original product of the 1611 KJV translators(their own pre-printed text) is as "lost" forever as the original autographs themselves. Without this "inspired original" translation, "KJV Only" advocates cannot possibly be 100% certain of every detail of the translator's "inerrant" product in 1611 — since all printed copies from 1611 to the present contain numerous 'errors' that called for six major revisions from 1611 to 1769 (which also means there was no "inerrant KJV" for at least 150 years!). And the KJV was slightly revised yet again in 1850, and is the edition widely published today.
Complicating the problem even more for "KJVONLYS" is the fact that there are 700 known DIFFERENCES between KJV Bibles currently in print (see examples in "Questions for the KJV Cult" and "Revision Is No 'Myth'!"). How can Ruckman, Riplinger, Reese, Evans, Edwards, Waite, Vance, Chick, Marrs, Hyles, ETC., possibly be absolutely certain that they have the "restored inerrant original intent of the translators" in a printed edition of the 1769 KJV when the "inspired originals" of the KJV are forever lost?
If we, who hold to the inerrancy of theoriginal autographsalone,"have no Bible," — then neither do "KJV Onlys" have a "Bible." So they have no "Final authority"according to their own false logic!
|
|