|
Tab Menu 1
| Deep Waters 'Deep Calleth Unto Deep ' -The place to go for Ministry discussions. Please keep it civil. Remember to discuss the issues, not each other. |
 |
|
03-25-2007, 12:18 AM
|
 |
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!
|
|
03-25-2007, 12:19 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,289
|
|
The only thing I can say to this is...Thank God for the Roman Catholic Church!
|
03-25-2007, 12:21 AM
|
|
God's Son
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,743
|
|
Maybe Voltaire was on to something... lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpenter
The only thing I can say to this is...Thank God for the Roman Catholic Church!
|
|
03-25-2007, 12:23 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,289
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tv1a
Maybe Voltaire was on to something... lol
|
How else would we have received the New Testament (according to some)?
|
03-25-2007, 12:40 AM
|
 |
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 4,184
|
|
|
I am not KJV only but I disagree with the above article because its what has been used to propose we accept texts that are skeletons.Dead bones walking.NO life in them.No thanks.
I have to ask which bible college are you attending and is it oneness?
|
03-25-2007, 12:51 AM
|
 |
Go Dodgers!
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 45,791
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tv1a
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...
|
I knew it was not the original. The original had so many grammatical and spelling errors it could not be printed and there were other english translations prior to it
|
03-25-2007, 01:06 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouvere
I am not KJV only but I disagree with the above article because its what has been used to propose we accept texts that are skeletons.Dead bones walking.NO life in them.No thanks.
I have to ask which bible college are you attending and is it oneness?
|
Re-read his post. He didn't say it was a bible college. It was a bible class at his college.
|
03-25-2007, 01:28 AM
|
|
Registered Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 4,184
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronzo
Re-read his post. He didn't say it was a bible college. It was a bible class at his college.
|
Okay I did read that wrong.Thanks for the correction.What more do you have to add?
|
03-25-2007, 02:01 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouvere
Okay I did read that wrong.Thanks for the correction.What more do you have to add?
|
Nothing.
|
03-25-2007, 05:08 AM
|
 |
Jerry Moon
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Borger Texas
Posts: 1,250
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tv1a
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...
|
What, the 1611 KJV is not the version the disciples used?
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:22 AM.
| |
Linear Mode
