Apostolic Friends Forum - Why have the KJV Purists Hid this Information?

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- Deep Waters (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Why have the KJV Purists Hid this Information? (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1652)

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!

The only thing I can say to this is...Thank God for the Roman Catholic Church!

:slaphappy :slaphappy

Maybe Voltaire was on to something... lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carpenter (Post 51909)

The only thing I can say to this is...Thank God for the Roman Catholic Church!

:slaphappy :slaphappy

Quote:

Originally Posted by tv1a (Post 51912)

Maybe Voltaire was on to something... lol

How else would we have received the New Testament (according to some)?

:D

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tv1a (Post 51907)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trouvere (Post 51929)

Re-read his post. He didn't say it was a bible college. It was a bible class at his college.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronzo (Post 51957)

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trouvere (Post 51970)

Okay I did read that wrong.Thanks for the correction.What more do you have to add?

Nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tv1a (Post 51907)

What, the 1611 KJV is not the version the disciples used?

I need to clarify it is an accredited christian based college. Their degrees transfer to other schools.

I didn't think mentioning the college was a faith based college had any significance to the post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronzo (Post 51957)

Re-read his post. He didn't say it was a bible college. It was a bible class at his college.

Here is a very good article on bible history.

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/bibhistory.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tv1a (Post 51990)

Did you forget that if it doesn't have "apostolic" in the title, then it don't got no truth, boy?

;)

So what are you attempting to say? That the KJV is incorrect? That God is not powerful enough have the KJV turn out how He desires? That the Gospel isn't what we have been taught? What is your point?:grampa

Just wondering.........:tiphat

Quote:

Originally Posted by RevDWW (Post 52059)

I have read studies on the difference in the different revisions and in my opinion the differences are minor and have not significantly impacted the whole. Some theologians try to make them larger than they really are. Having said that, anyone who believes that the KJV is totally and completely inerrant is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest. I believe God has preserved His word over the centuries, and sincere and honest seekers of truth will find in the scriptures a inerrant revelation of God.

Many would be horrified to learn that King James was homosexual and is buried in Westminster Abbey with a male lover on each side of him.

God will use whoever and whatever He chooses to accomplish His purpose. God knows how to reveal His word and His will to us and He has done so, for the true seeker there are more translations and versions than ever and with the internet endless research is possible. Of course, first one needs a personal relationship with the author. JMHO

It may not have apostolic in the title, but it does have an accredited bachelor's program. lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronzo (Post 52025)

Did you forget that if it doesn't have "apostolic" in the title, then it don't got no truth, boy?

;)

Could not God do the same with other translations?

Actually the point is the KJV as we know it is different from the original. The KJV purists have no more credibility or no less credibility than most of the other versions.

BTW, most experts pros and cons agree the KJV plagerized other translations... Even then to say the KJV came straight from the mouth of God is a bit of the stretch...tv

Quote:

Originally Posted by RevDWW (Post 52059)

There is a pretty good article on the KJV at:
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm
This is not presented to malign the KJV. The folks who have published the site have the following to say about the KJV:

"...Foremost, we feel that the KJV is an EXCELLENT translation, but not the ONLY excellent translation.
2. In over 90 percent of the New Testament, readings are identical word-for-word, regardless of the family. Of the remaining ten percent, MOST of the differences between the texts are fairly irrelevant, such as calling the Lord "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ," or putting the word "the" before a noun. Less than two percent would significantly alter the meaning of a passage, and NONE of them would contradict or alter any of the basic points of Christian doctrine. What we have, then, is a dispute concerning less than one-half of one percent of the Bible. The other 99.5% we all agree on! ..."