Apostolic Friends Forum
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

tv1a 03-24-2007 11:18 PM
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!

Carpenter 03-24-2007 11:19 PM
The only thing I can say to this is...Thank God for the Roman Catholic Church!

:slaphappy :slaphappy

tv1a 03-24-2007 11:21 PM
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

Carpenter 03-24-2007 11:23 PM
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

Trouvere 03-24-2007 11:40 PM
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?

Praxeas 03-24-2007 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tv1a (Post 51907)
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

Ronzo 03-25-2007 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouvere (Post 51929)
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.

Trouvere 03-25-2007 12:28 AM
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?

Ronzo 03-25-2007 01:01 AM
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.

Revelationist 03-25-2007 04:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tv1a (Post 51907)
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?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:17 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.