Still non-answers and all inuendo. Some Protestants do use the Apocrypha. You seem to avoid that. Also there are the Orthodox which not only inlude the Apocrypha but include 2 more books. But as you say the KJV is "pure" why was it removed? Also if it was NOT "pure" in the 1611 why was it removed? You are worshipping a translation of the bible not the bible. Now aside from the Apocrypha, what of the constant revisions done to the translation? At least 25. Why would there need to be a change of the actually wording of the scripture? Why "revise" he KJV? Also the influence of Erasmus... you know the RCC who was an expert in latin and used his copies of the Vulgate to "help" in translation.
KJVO?
- Thread starter StanJ
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
[SIZE=12pt]For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. [/SIZE] Mat. 13:15
[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]
A complete cop out! I should have known. Odd you use the Bible as a weapon and not what it was intended for. Why is that?
I say this in the KJV for you:
(Rom 12:3) For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
(Tit 3:9) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
(2Ti 2:23) But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
(Eph 4:3) Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
(Php 1:15) Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: (Php 1:16) The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: (Php 1:17) But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
(Php 1:18) What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
(Eph 4:2) With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; (Eph 4:3) Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (Eph 4:4) There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (Eph 4:5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (Eph 4:6) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
(Eph 4:11) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; (Eph 4:12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (Eph 4:13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (Eph 4:14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
(Eph 4:15) But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: (Eph 4:16) From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
(Rom 10:17) So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Other modern translations are just as valid and not "corrupt" or "satanic" as the KJV ONLY claim.
I say this in the KJV for you:
(Rom 12:3) For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
(Tit 3:9) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
(2Ti 2:23) But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
(Eph 4:3) Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
(Php 1:15) Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: (Php 1:16) The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: (Php 1:17) But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
(Php 1:18) What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
(Eph 4:2) With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; (Eph 4:3) Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (Eph 4:4) There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; (Eph 4:5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (Eph 4:6) One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
(Eph 4:11) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; (Eph 4:12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (Eph 4:13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (Eph 4:14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
(Eph 4:15) But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: (Eph 4:16) From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
(Rom 10:17) So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Other modern translations are just as valid and not "corrupt" or "satanic" as the KJV ONLY claim.
OK......
again:
Some Protestants do use the Apocrypha. You seem to avoid that. Also there are the Orthodox which not only inlude the Apocrypha but include 2 more books. But as you say the KJV is "pure" why was it removed? Also if it was NOT "pure" in the 1611 why was it removed? You are worshipping a translation of the bible not the bible. Now aside from the Apocrypha, what of the constant revisions done to the translation? At least 25. Why would there need to be a change of the actually wording of the scripture? Why "revise" he KJV? Also the influence of Erasmus... you know the RCC who was an expert in latin and used his copies of the Vulgate to "help" in translation.
Can you please answer the questions rather than some off the wall answer like Matthew 13:15 which is NOT pertinent to the topic.
again:
Some Protestants do use the Apocrypha. You seem to avoid that. Also there are the Orthodox which not only inlude the Apocrypha but include 2 more books. But as you say the KJV is "pure" why was it removed? Also if it was NOT "pure" in the 1611 why was it removed? You are worshipping a translation of the bible not the bible. Now aside from the Apocrypha, what of the constant revisions done to the translation? At least 25. Why would there need to be a change of the actually wording of the scripture? Why "revise" he KJV? Also the influence of Erasmus... you know the RCC who was an expert in latin and used his copies of the Vulgate to "help" in translation.
Can you please answer the questions rather than some off the wall answer like Matthew 13:15 which is NOT pertinent to the topic.
Which KJV Bible was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English? The one in 1611 or one of the revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or the last one in 1850? Please specify which one.
What was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611? Please be specific in your answer.
If there was a perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God need to perfectly preserve a second one if the first one was perfectly preserved? Please give details and sources for these details.
If there was no perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God leave His people no perfectly preserved Word for 1611 years? Please give details and sources for these details.
What was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611? Please be specific in your answer.
If there was a perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God need to perfectly preserve a second one if the first one was perfectly preserved? Please give details and sources for these details.
If there was no perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God leave His people no perfectly preserved Word for 1611 years? Please give details and sources for these details.
Obviously, if you choose to “kitchen sink” the issue (i. e. throw every presumption and misdirect into the arena in an attempt to obfuscate and evade), then the truth will always be the first casualty.
But you certainly have hung in there longer than I expected. I discern from your so-called questions that you seem to have a certain desire to know the truth. The word of God tells us it is the truth that makes us free.
Although you still have not limited the discussion to a single question, the half dozen questions you’ve tossed out here are all related. So we’ll give it a go.
Let’s start with a reprise of the OP:
You gotta laugh when you see that dead fish posing as gourmet food. An OP like that brings every vulture in to feed.
It is true that many KJV proponents do not fully understand the tenets of the position they claim to hold; they have not performed due diligence. This is where those to criticize the Holy Bible, aka textual critics, rule the day. Since those critics deny inspiration, all that remains for them is to argue over dead men’s bones -- an argument of which no born again believer should partake. And what a melee it is!
I am not “KJVO” -- never was. The recently invented “KJVO” label is a convenient strawman utilized by unsaved critics whose highest opinion is of themselves. They need someone to brow beat, lest they lose their perceived status and stuff...
In your latest post here, you’ve fawned over your presumption of “perfectly preserved” at least a half dozen times. I pray the missive was not intentional.
1) Which KJV Bible was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English?
Wrong question. Rather, has God kept his promise to preserve his pure inspired word forever ala Psalm 12:6, 7, or has he not? What is your reply?
2) ...The one in 1611 or one of the revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or the last one in 1850? Please specify which one.
Wrong question. Rather, there have never been any 'revisions' of the KJV text.
In summary, the only changes to the KJV since 1611 are of three types:
- 1612: Typography (from Gothic to Roman);
- 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors;
- 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling.
The Myth of Revision by David Reagan proves that lists published by KJV critics (e. g. Pirkle, Combs, et al.), purporting to show various or changed readings in KJV editions, are simply showing lists of typographical errors which had crept into one printing or another (which KJV translators Ward and Bols attempted to fix in subsequent printings).
3) What was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611? Please be specific in your answer.
His preserved word was always his vernacular Bibles!
In keeping with his promise, God's vernacular (i.e. common) Bible has always 'come down from heaven ready-made' (as it were).
Sorry, critics, but the KJB text-type is not to be confused with today's KJ Bible. Today, as the vernacular Bible it is, the KJB is a relatively new arrival - not some forgone conclusion from antiquity i.e. it wasn't the 1611 KJB that "was translated by Greek & Hebrew scholars into the English language of their day." Thus, it shares no connection with men's copyrighted counterfeit "modern versions" of today.
The antiquity of the KJV text-type is evidenced in Joseph Bosworth's Parallel Gospels. It includes the Gothic version dated before A.D. 360, the Anglo-Saxon version dated between A.D. 600 and 900, the Wycliffe translation dated 1381, and the Tyndale dated 1526. Comparing them with the King James Version and the new versions quickly shows that the King James is the text-type that has been used historically by the church as far back as the Gothic period, dated before A.D. 360.
Acts 2:6 says, "Every man heard them speak in his own language." God has spoken to men around the world through a text like the KJV in the German Tepl Bible, the Italian Diodati Bible, the French Olivetan Bible, the Hungarian Erdosi Bible, the Spanish Valera Bible, the Polish Visoly Bible, the De Grave Bible in Holland, the Russian Holy Synodal Bible, the German Luther Bible, and the Gottshcalkson Bible of Iceland. These all agree with the King James Version.
4) If there was a perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God need to perfectly preserve a second one if the first one was perfectly preserved? Please give details and sources for these details.
He didn't need to, because it’s not about “English.” It’s about God preserving his pure inspired word forever (Psalm 12:6, 7). That preserved inspired preserved word for English speakers today happens to be the Authorized Version.
5) If there was no perfectly preserved translation in English before 1611 why would God leave His people no perfectly preserved Word for 1611 years? Please give details and sources for these details.
By now, I trust you get the idea about God’s vernacular Bibles, and about why this is not anything to do with the current “KJVO” slide.
There are two types of "earlier bibles" -- God's, and Satan's (just like today). By now you should understand that ALL of God’s vernacular Bibles are the word of God -- because they all come from the same text-type; whereas Satan’s corrupt minority text bibles die when their copyright holders die.
BTW, God has no use for any “originals,” otherwise he would have made certain that we had them today. Rather, the question remains, has God kept his promise?
The prevalent falsehood (the presumed necessity of a 'scholarly' search for the elusive "original") panders to the flesh and has resulted in much hemorraging within the Body of Christ via counterfeit versions.
For example, the NIV does not come from the overwhelming majority of texts (aka the Majority Text). Indeed, there is no modern English Bible translation which does! Rather, the NIV is based on the less than 1% of manuscripts (the "Minority Text") which have been exhaustively documented and rejected as corrupt. The NIV is no wholly Holy Bible.
And the survival of ‘the’ original Greek New Testament is a dream which dissolves with the discovery that not all manuscripts and critical editions are alike. Those applying this term to a Greek text on the bookstore shelf or internet site are unacquainted with the volatile state of the text.
There are over 5366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. A corrupt few (again, that less-than-1%, i. e. the Minority Text) give a view of the text much like a shifting kaleidoscope. They contain several hundred thousand variant readings. In an attempt to marry these ‘moody’ manuscripts, the ‘Wheel of Fortune’ is whirled and readings are selected for inclusion in what scholars call a ‘critical edition of the Greek text.’ There are more than two dozen of these texts, each a ‘prize’ stuffed with between 5000 and 8000 variations. As one scholar puts it, “...equally competent critics often arrive at contrary conclusions as to the same variation.”
The overwhelming majority (over 99%) of these manuscripts, lectionaries and writers agree generally with each other as to the readings of the New Testament. Manuscripts from the second century (P66) down through the Middle Ages (A.D. 1500) attest to the readings of this 'Majority Text', as Kurt Aland terms it. Dean Burgeon, who found this 'Majority Text' in most of the early writers collated, calls it "The Traditional Text.' It is also called the Syrian Text, the Byzantine Text and the K (Kappa) or Common Text.
This text type is available today in English in the Authorized Version, or as it is called in the United States, the King James Version. It's 809,000,000 copies since 1611, in 300 languages, demonstrates the continuum of this 'Majority Text'. (Unfortunately, once again, the new versions are not based on this "Majority Text', but on the dissenting handful of manuscripts (less than 1%) which disagree with the Majority).
In keeping with his promise, God's vernacular (i.e. common) Bible has always 'come down from heaven ready-made' (as it were).
The KJB text-type is not to be confused with today's KJ Bible. Today, as the vernacular Bible it is, the KJB is a relatively new arrival - not some forgone conclusion from antiquity i.e. it wasn't the 1611 KJB that "was translated by Greek & Hebrew scholars into the English language of their day." Thus, it shares no connection with men's copyrighted counterfeit "modern versions" of today.
The antiquity of the KJV text-type is evidenced in Joseph Bosworth's Parallel Gospels. It includes the Gothic version dated before A.D. 360, the Anglo-Saxon version dated between A.D. 600 and 900, the Wycliffe translation dated 1381, and the Tyndale dated 1526. Comparing them with the King James Version and the new versions quickly shows that the King James is the text-type that has been used historically by the church as far back as the Gothic period, dated before A.D. 360.
Acts 2:6 says, "Every man heard them speak in his own language." God has spoken to men around the world through a text like the KJV in the German Tepl Bible, the Italian Diodati Bible, the French Olivetan Bible, the Hungarian Erdosi Bible, the Spanish Valera Bible, the Polish Visoly Bible, the De Grave Bible in Holland, the Russian Holy Synodal Bible, the German Luther Bible, and the Gottshcalkson Bible of Iceland. These all agree with the King James Version.
God's pattern has always been the same. He has always given the COMMON MAN the COMMON BIBLE written in the COMMON LANGUAGE of the day to do one thing: evangelize the world. Today, that vernacular Bible is the uncopyrighted, free discourse King James Bible.
Remember, only a fair question is worthy of a truth-full answer.
Sadly it an argument they won't address, despite the fact that in 1611 they did NOT have all the Greek manuscripts they have today for modern/accurate English translations. Also, I guess no other language translation would be sufficient for them, so a language that only had it start around 550 AD, English, became God's chosen, preferred, and inspired language. :blink:ccfromsc said:
Do you really think you are going to convince people with this mentality that they are wrong? They are deceived by the enemy, pure and simple.
Seems you have a hard head or just do not want to know the "truth."
From wikipedia dealing with the KJV the 1769 Text:
"Parris and Blayney sought consistently to remove those elements of the 1611 and subsequent editions that they believed were due to the vagaries of printers, while incorporating most of the revised readings of the Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638, and each also introducing a few improved readings of their own. They undertook the mammoth task of standardizing the wide variation in punctuation and spelling of the original, making many thousands of minor changes to the text; although some of these updates appear to alter the ostensible sense – as when the original text of Genesis 2:21 "in stead" ("in that place") was standardized to read "instead" ("as an alternative"). In addition, Blayney and Parris thoroughly revised and greatly extended the italicization of "supplied" words not found in the original languages by cross-checking against the presumed source texts. Blayney seems to have worked from the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus, rather than the later editions of Beza that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had favoured; accordingly the current Oxford standard text alters around a dozen italicizations where Beza and Stephanus differ.[97] Like the 1611 edition, the 1769 Oxford edition included the Apocrypha, although Blayney tended to remove cross-references to the Books of the Apocrypha from the margins of their Old and New Testaments wherever these had been provided by the original translators. Altogether, Blayney's 1769 text differed from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places.[98] Since that date, a few further changes have been introduced to the Oxford standard text."
Do you understand 24,000 textual differences in the 1769 text and the KJV before it alone. Gee Why won't you acknowledge?
This quote alone from av1611.org Brief History of the King James Version:
"The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632.
The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors. Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic priest, who in 1792 issued the first colume of his own translation of the Bible, accordingly paid tribute to the Bible of his time: "
Gee it mentions revisions and additions and changes to the KJV. Why is that? Could you be wrong? You do realize that your Byzantine text, a lot of which came from Egypt... Alexandria?
You totally avoided the Orthodox churches and their bible. Why?
One can easily look up information on the KJV and thus see through your deliberate twisting of this.
From wikipedia dealing with the KJV the 1769 Text:
"Parris and Blayney sought consistently to remove those elements of the 1611 and subsequent editions that they believed were due to the vagaries of printers, while incorporating most of the revised readings of the Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638, and each also introducing a few improved readings of their own. They undertook the mammoth task of standardizing the wide variation in punctuation and spelling of the original, making many thousands of minor changes to the text; although some of these updates appear to alter the ostensible sense – as when the original text of Genesis 2:21 "in stead" ("in that place") was standardized to read "instead" ("as an alternative"). In addition, Blayney and Parris thoroughly revised and greatly extended the italicization of "supplied" words not found in the original languages by cross-checking against the presumed source texts. Blayney seems to have worked from the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus, rather than the later editions of Beza that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had favoured; accordingly the current Oxford standard text alters around a dozen italicizations where Beza and Stephanus differ.[97] Like the 1611 edition, the 1769 Oxford edition included the Apocrypha, although Blayney tended to remove cross-references to the Books of the Apocrypha from the margins of their Old and New Testaments wherever these had been provided by the original translators. Altogether, Blayney's 1769 text differed from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places.[98] Since that date, a few further changes have been introduced to the Oxford standard text."
Do you understand 24,000 textual differences in the 1769 text and the KJV before it alone. Gee Why won't you acknowledge?
This quote alone from av1611.org Brief History of the King James Version:
"The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632.
The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors. Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic priest, who in 1792 issued the first colume of his own translation of the Bible, accordingly paid tribute to the Bible of his time: "
Gee it mentions revisions and additions and changes to the KJV. Why is that? Could you be wrong? You do realize that your Byzantine text, a lot of which came from Egypt... Alexandria?
You totally avoided the Orthodox churches and their bible. Why?
One can easily look up information on the KJV and thus see through your deliberate twisting of this.
.
God would not have you play a fool's game. While I believe it is done in ignorance, you will need to revise your priorities if you wish to walk in truth.
There are at least two fatal problems with your latest post.
One problem with your posts in general is a lack of primary (or even secondary) documentation. I’ll leave it to you to search out the definitions of those two terms. When one values his own opinion above God’s truth, then he will naturally seek out others of like mind in an attempt to verify his own imaginations.
However, the world of opinion is antithetical to the word of God, and no born again believer, firmly on the rock, would dabble with the leaven that is Wikipedia. Perhaps you were unaware that the fake news online encyclopedia Wikipedia is the laughing stock of academia. For example,
Wikipedia exec admits popular website 'is not about truth'
As far as the latest study looking at Wikipedia's medical entries in general, the consensus is that Wikipedia is outdated at best, and blatantly dishonest at worst. Patients looking for accurate information about a particular health issue would do best to look elsewhere, discovered the researchers, as Wikipedia simply isn't the reliable information source that many people think it is.
"The present study demonstrated that most Wikipedia articles on the 10 most costly conditions in the United States contained assertions that are inconsistent with peer-reviewed sources," revealed the authors. "Because our standard was the peer-reviewed published literature, it can be argued that these assertions on Wikipedia represent factual errors."
Then again, Wikipedia has never been about publishing the truth, at least according to Dr. James Heilman, president of Wiki Project Med Foundation, the non-profit wing of Wikipedia that deals specifically with medical content. In his denial of the study's findings, Dr. Heilman admitted that Wikipedia is not a website for finding truth.
"Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability," admitted Dr. Heilman to BBC News.
This is a critical statement, as it reveals what Wikipedia is truly about. Since the site remains blatantly hostile to "alternative" and holistic medicine -- that is, anything that contradicts the corporate agenda spoon-fed to the masses -- it makes sense that an arbitrary standard of "verifiability" is upheld over actual truth.
"Health care professionals, trainees, and patients should use caution when using Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient care," concluded the study. "Our findings reinforce the idea that physicians and medical students who currently use Wikipedia as a medical reference should be discouraged from doing so because of the potential for errors."
You can access the study in its entirety for free here:
JAOA.org.
Another problem with your post is that you have failed to prove your claim that the King James Bible is a revision. I had already explained, and given you the primary and secondary documentation sources for, the three types of changes made:
- 1612: Typography (from Gothic to Roman);
- 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors;
- 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling.
What you apparently do not understand is that changes are not equivalent to revision.
However, Caesar’s world of legalities understands that!
“To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a ‘new work’ or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes.” -- Derivative Copyright Law (partial)
Today’s modern versions of the Holy Bible (KJB), are protected by copyright law. Permission must be obtained from, and fees paid to, the men who claim to own these modern derivative works. And different publishers have different terms. Note that legally, they're not "translations;" they're derivative works of the King James Bible, but changed in accordance with Derivative Copyright Law.
So, ccfromsc, we learn it's never been about any "translation," although that is where worldly men place the emphasis so that worldly wanna-be "scholars" can acquire the wiggle room required to play their "textual criticism" games with their copyrighted inventions. They say, “If we can convince others that the King James Bible also meets the legal definition of a modern revision, then we can continue to PROFIT from our plethora of modern copyrighted revisions unfettered.”
Why, ccfromsc, do you think the AV (aka KJB) is not, and has never been, copyrighted? If, as you've attempted to insinuate, the KJB is just another version in a long line of versions, then why, as the most common Bible in the world, isn't it copyrighted?
The King James Bible is under a Letters Patent; it is the only Bible not bound by a copyright. No author or publisher receives a royalty because God is the author. The word of God is not bound (II Timothy 2:9) -- but your NIV, and all modern versions, are.
Do you understand the fundamental differences between a “copyright” and a “letters patent?"
Copyright: "The legal protection given to authors and artists to prevent reproduction of their work without their consent. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to print, reprint, publish, copy and sell the material covered by the copyright." The New Standard Encyclopedia, volume 3, page 565.
LETTERS PATENT. The name of an instrument granted by the government to convey a right to the patentee; as, a patent for a tract of land; or to secure to him a right which he already possesses, as a patent for a new invention or discovery; Letters patent are a matter of record. They are so called because they are not sealed up, but are granted open. Vide Patent. Bouvier's Dictionary of Law, 1856.
A Letters Patent is about preservation; a copyright is about restriction.
So this is how it plays out in the real world:
Obviously the KJB's crown patent is not the same as a copyright, as it was created before copyright laws. The proof is in the pudding, as anyone may reproduce the text, throughout the world, freely. God had his Bible done before the invention of the copyright. The crown patent simply related to the care and control of printing an accurate text back then and was overseen by the government which 'authorized' the text. That same government, although now liberal, still has the responsibility of guarding the veracity of the text within England. They have always allowed anyone in the world to print it, and consequently could never go back and change their mind and not allow this. Even if one wanted to say it had a copyright, that copyright would be null and void, because they have set the precedent of allowing it to be printed worldwide. One of the legal caveats about current 'copyright' law is that if you do not restrict people from printing your material, you lose your right to come back later and insist that they do. So either way, the KJB, as the word of God, unlike the modern copyrighted versions of the KJB, is not bound.
God made certain that the historic English Bible (e.g. KJB) had the correct "equivalency" long before copyright laws were created worldwide. He makes certain that the antique Queen's Patent is never enforced to curtail its spread in Great Britain.
So, ccfromsc, it is a fool’s game to continue attempting to conflate the modern copyrighted inventions of men, with the King James Bible. I strongly suggest you commit to performing proper due diligence, which includes researching primary and secondary documentation sources. Repeating hearsay bodes poorly for you and for all who wish to walk in truth, as the enemy anticipates your next misstep.
.
.
.
ccfromsc, what’s more important to you -- to make others look bad so you won’t look so bad yourself, or to walk in true liberty beholden to no man?
God would not have you play a fool's game. While I believe it is done in ignorance, you will need to revise your priorities if you wish to walk in truth.
There are at least two fatal problems with your latest post.
One problem with your posts in general is a lack of primary (or even secondary) documentation. I’ll leave it to you to search out the definitions of those two terms. When one values his own opinion above God’s truth, then he will naturally seek out others of like mind in an attempt to verify his own imaginations.
However, the world of opinion is antithetical to the word of God, and no born again believer, firmly on the rock, would dabble with the leaven that is Wikipedia. Perhaps you were unaware that the fake news online encyclopedia Wikipedia is the laughing stock of academia. For example,
Wikipedia exec admits popular website 'is not about truth'
As far as the latest study looking at Wikipedia's medical entries in general, the consensus is that Wikipedia is outdated at best, and blatantly dishonest at worst. Patients looking for accurate information about a particular health issue would do best to look elsewhere, discovered the researchers, as Wikipedia simply isn't the reliable information source that many people think it is.
"The present study demonstrated that most Wikipedia articles on the 10 most costly conditions in the United States contained assertions that are inconsistent with peer-reviewed sources," revealed the authors. "Because our standard was the peer-reviewed published literature, it can be argued that these assertions on Wikipedia represent factual errors."
Then again, Wikipedia has never been about publishing the truth, at least according to Dr. James Heilman, president of Wiki Project Med Foundation, the non-profit wing of Wikipedia that deals specifically with medical content. In his denial of the study's findings, Dr. Heilman admitted that Wikipedia is not a website for finding truth.
"Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability," admitted Dr. Heilman to BBC News.
This is a critical statement, as it reveals what Wikipedia is truly about. Since the site remains blatantly hostile to "alternative" and holistic medicine -- that is, anything that contradicts the corporate agenda spoon-fed to the masses -- it makes sense that an arbitrary standard of "verifiability" is upheld over actual truth.
"Health care professionals, trainees, and patients should use caution when using Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient care," concluded the study. "Our findings reinforce the idea that physicians and medical students who currently use Wikipedia as a medical reference should be discouraged from doing so because of the potential for errors."
You can access the study in its entirety for free here:
JAOA.org.
Because you’re looking for verifiability, rather than truth, there are countless antichrist internet sites out there willing to accommodate you. Wikipedia is merely one of those sites.
Another problem with your post is that you have failed to prove your claim that the King James Bible is a revision. I had already explained, and given you the primary and secondary documentation sources for, the three types of changes made:
- 1612: Typography (from Gothic to Roman);
- 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors;
- 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling.
What you apparently do not understand is that changes are not equivalent to revision.
However, Caesar’s world of legalities understands that!
“To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a ‘new work’ or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes.” -- Derivative Copyright Law (partial)
Today’s modern versions of the Holy Bible (KJB), are protected by copyright law. Permission must be obtained from, and fees paid to, the men who claim to own these modern derivative works. And different publishers have different terms. Note that legally, they're not "translations;" they're derivative works of the King James Bible, but changed in accordance with Derivative Copyright Law.
So, ccfromsc, we learn it's never been about any "translation," although that is where worldly men place the emphasis so that worldly wanna-be "scholars" can acquire the wiggle room required to play their "textual criticism" games with their copyrighted inventions. They say, “If we can convince others that the King James Bible also meets the legal definition of a modern revision, then we can continue to PROFIT from our plethora of modern copyrighted revisions unfettered.”
Why, ccfromsc, do you think the AV (aka KJB) is not, and has never been, copyrighted? If, as you've attempted to insinuate, the KJB is just another version in a long line of versions, then why, as the most common Bible in the world, isn't it copyrighted?
The King James Bible is under a Letters Patent; it is the only Bible not bound by a copyright. No author or publisher receives a royalty because God is the author. The word of God is not bound (II Timothy 2:9) -- but your NIV, and all modern versions, are.
Do you understand the fundamental differences between a “copyright” and a “letters patent?"
Copyright: "The legal protection given to authors and artists to prevent reproduction of their work without their consent. The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to print, reprint, publish, copy and sell the material covered by the copyright." The New Standard Encyclopedia, volume 3, page 565.
LETTERS PATENT. The name of an instrument granted by the government to convey a right to the patentee; as, a patent for a tract of land; or to secure to him a right which he already possesses, as a patent for a new invention or discovery; Letters patent are a matter of record. They are so called because they are not sealed up, but are granted open. Vide Patent. Bouvier's Dictionary of Law, 1856.
A Letters Patent is about preservation; a copyright is about restriction.
So this is how it plays out in the real world:
Obviously the KJB's crown patent is not the same as a copyright, as it was created before copyright laws. The proof is in the pudding, as anyone may reproduce the text, throughout the world, freely. God had his Bible done before the invention of the copyright. The crown patent simply related to the care and control of printing an accurate text back then and was overseen by the government which 'authorized' the text. That same government, although now liberal, still has the responsibility of guarding the veracity of the text within England. They have always allowed anyone in the world to print it, and consequently could never go back and change their mind and not allow this. Even if one wanted to say it had a copyright, that copyright would be null and void, because they have set the precedent of allowing it to be printed worldwide. One of the legal caveats about current 'copyright' law is that if you do not restrict people from printing your material, you lose your right to come back later and insist that they do. So either way, the KJB, as the word of God, unlike the modern copyrighted versions of the KJB, is not bound.
God made certain that the historic English Bible (e.g. KJB) had the correct "equivalency" long before copyright laws were created worldwide. He makes certain that the antique Queen's Patent is never enforced to curtail its spread in Great Britain.
So, ccfromsc, it is a fool’s game to continue attempting to conflate the modern copyrighted inventions of men, with the King James Bible. I strongly suggest you commit to performing proper due diligence, which includes researching primary and secondary documentation sources. Repeating hearsay bodes poorly for you and for all who wish to walk in truth, as the enemy anticipates your next misstep.
.
.
.
ALL the proof needed to refute KJVO is here at the following website;
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#proof
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#proof
That may or may not be relevant, IF the issue was truly about "refuting KJVO."
However, as we've seen and documented, it isn't.
Rather, the strawman OP is all about setting oneself up with secular authority in order to bully others with his secular knowledge.
However, by definition, God is not found in the secular.
Buyer beware.
I find it rather amusing that KJVO proponents want us to believe it is inspired when the above link clearly shows marginal notes in many areas of the original 1611 version that disagreed with their own translation, as it normally is today. Inspiration doesn't require marginal notes but translations do, especially if the translators are not sure, as was the case with the AV in it's initial translation. They themselves say that they TRANSLATED it from the Greek and Hebrew texts.
.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: -- 2 Tim. 3:16 AV
It doesn’t say God inspired any man; it says scripture is given by inspiration of God; God’s word is inspired. God’s word is God’s work, not man’s.
If the following does not describe the agenda of the OP (and its ultimate resolution) to a “T,” then what does?
...the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who lord over us? For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. -- Psalm 12 AV
Obviously, the question is: Do you possess God’s “inspired” “pure words,” his “preserve[d]” “for ever” words? ...I do, thank you, Father.
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. -- Psalm 138:2 AV
.
I can’t speak for StanJ’s “KJVO” strawman, but I do know what Almighty God says:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: -- 2 Tim. 3:16 AV
It doesn’t say God inspired any man; it says scripture is given by inspiration of God; God’s word is inspired. God’s word is God’s work, not man’s.
If the following does not describe the agenda of the OP (and its ultimate resolution) to a “T,” then what does?
...the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who lord over us? For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. -- Psalm 12 AV
Obviously, the question is: Do you possess God’s “inspired” “pure words,” his “preserve[d]” “for ever” words? ...I do, thank you, Father.
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. -- Psalm 138:2 AV
.
Again you misdirect deliberately. Why? So what about Wikipedia. I also used another source .... remember?
Now for your statement:
"The King James Bible is under a Letters Patent; it is the only Bible not bound by a copyright. No author or publisher receives a royalty because God is the author. The word of God is not bound (II Timothy 2:9) -- but your NIV, and all modern versions, are."
Again you are very very wrong. For starters the KJV is under copyright... to the Church of England. Second there are several bibles in English that are "public domain."
A simple site such as http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16377/what-major-translations-of-the-bible-are-in-the-public-domain-and-therefore-not
Goes into depth. "
19 down vote
In the United States, Copyright law has two basic categories - protected works and public domain. When a work has been around long enough (currently 95 years after the first publication or 70 years after the author's death) it enters the public domain, and is therefore allowed to be reproduced at will.
According to the "Copyright Act", any work published prior to 1923 is in the public domain. This means many older translations are fair use:
Also:"
6 down vote
I have compiled a database of known public domain Bible translations. My compilation includes the following:
Versions available:
Why do you still give out this garbage without researching it?
There are modern translations that are good, reliable, and equal to the KJV. Why can you not see that?
Since you want to use the Bible as an excuse:
(2Ti 2:15) Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who doesn't need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth. (2Ti 2:16) But avoid irreverent, empty speech, for this will produce an even greater measure of godlessness. (2Ti 2:17) And their word will spread like gangrene, among whom are Hymenaeus and Philetus. (2Ti 2:18) They have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and are overturning the faith of some.
Why do you insist on a path that splits churches? Causes dissention?
Now for your statement:
"The King James Bible is under a Letters Patent; it is the only Bible not bound by a copyright. No author or publisher receives a royalty because God is the author. The word of God is not bound (II Timothy 2:9) -- but your NIV, and all modern versions, are."
Again you are very very wrong. For starters the KJV is under copyright... to the Church of England. Second there are several bibles in English that are "public domain."
A simple site such as http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/16377/what-major-translations-of-the-bible-are-in-the-public-domain-and-therefore-not
Goes into depth. "
19 down vote
In the United States, Copyright law has two basic categories - protected works and public domain. When a work has been around long enough (currently 95 years after the first publication or 70 years after the author's death) it enters the public domain, and is therefore allowed to be reproduced at will.
According to the "Copyright Act", any work published prior to 1923 is in the public domain. This means many older translations are fair use:
- King James Version
- Revised Standard Version (but not the NRSV)
- Duoay-Rheims
- Young's Literal
- Darby
- JPS Bible (but not the New JPS nor the Jerusalem Bible)
- The World English Bible (WEB)
- The New English Translation - i.e the "Net" Bible Note: Does not apply if you charge for it, though...
- The WikiSource Translation
The English Standard Version ESV is copyrighted, but the terms are intentionally loose:"
Also:"
6 down vote
I have compiled a database of known public domain Bible translations. My compilation includes the following:
Versions available:
- American Standard-ASV1901 (ASV)
- Bible in Basic English (BBE)
- Darby English Bible (DARBY)
- King James Version (KJV)
- Webster's Bible (WBT)
- World English Bible (WEB)
- Young's Literal Translation (YLT)"
Why do you still give out this garbage without researching it?
There are modern translations that are good, reliable, and equal to the KJV. Why can you not see that?
Since you want to use the Bible as an excuse:
(2Ti 2:15) Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who doesn't need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth. (2Ti 2:16) But avoid irreverent, empty speech, for this will produce an even greater measure of godlessness. (2Ti 2:17) And their word will spread like gangrene, among whom are Hymenaeus and Philetus. (2Ti 2:18) They have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and are overturning the faith of some.
Why do you insist on a path that splits churches? Causes dissention?
Same diff. You used “another source” for the same purpose of trying to give life to the myth of revision re: the KJB. There was nothing relevant there, either, to support your claim.
Your reply is a non sequitur. The historic English Bible (e.g. KJB) existed long before copyright laws were created worldwide. In other words, you’re simply blowing more contentious hot air.
Point is I got you in another un-truth and you won't admit it. Point is you spew out falsehoods and innuedo designed to mislead and deliberately disparage modern translations that are the equal of the KJV.
The KJV WAS revised over the 400 year history. to say not is hypocritical.
The KJV WAS revised over the 400 year history. to say not is hypocritical.
You've already been repeatedly shown, with documentation in this thread, the errors of your rhetoric.
We've also documented, from the admitted heretics themselves (Westcott and Hort), the nexus of the lie that "modern translations...are equal of the KJV."
We're all still waiting for your documentation. Be certain to let us know when you've found it.
.
.
I have given many sources, you schrug them off cause they cast light on your darkness! You went off on Wikipedia, yet you avoided and evaded the av1611.org site? Why is that?
You can not name one modern bible that solely uses "Wescott-Hort" in your attempt to cast doubt on their validity. Some may reference but not use them. Do you even know what they exactly did besides quoting some off the wall KJV Only site?
You can not name one modern bible that solely uses "Wescott-Hort" in your attempt to cast doubt on their validity. Some may reference but not use them. Do you even know what they exactly did besides quoting some off the wall KJV Only site?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked