Getting discouraged with KJ publishers

[MilkmanDan]

I personally do not like Zondervan. They are too ecumenical in there other publishing. I have a KJV study bible and have found mistakes and disagree with many of their notes.

Zondervan is the worst, IMHO. They take great liberties with their text. I will give you this, I do not own one this is second hand YMMV.

In Bibles I have a:
Ryrie (Moody BP),
Cambridge,
Scofield (Oxford),
A KJ Study Bible (Nelson),
Thompson Chain (Kendrick),
Bearing Precious Seed and
a local Church (Parker Memorial/"Church" on the binding)

In my studies I have found that the Cambridge, the Church and Oxford Bibles all have best texts I have found. The Church Bible may in fact be from the Cambridge although I can't be certain. But, nevertheless as someone previously said this mess with PCE can take you down a slippery slope. I want to have an "every word" (DT 8:3) Bible as much as anyone else does and I am pretty confident that I have this the aforementioned King James Bibles.

Respectfully Submitted

MMD

[Kayla]

Is PeterAV really Peter Ruckman?

I have been wondering the same thing trc.

[Kayla]

Jerry, I sensed the concern in your post so I'm making sure I reply immediately! Unadulterated King James Bibles can be purchased from www.localchurchbiblepublishers.com and to make it easier for people the phone # (517) 882-2112 is under the web address I gave as well! I also appologize Jerry if I put Bearing Precious Seed with something it doesn't belong!! I only can tell you the above information for ordering a KJB is correct. Hope this helps! His by Grace

I'm curious: which Bearing Precious Seed publisher is the Authorized IFB publisher for the KJV? I have a NT by BPS that has these same "prOBlems" in them - not different words, but different capitalization. Is there a Baptist Pope that can give the official imprimatur stamp to a particular organization? And no, BPS is not a single organization, but a banner name that independant printers use. Which ones are approved and "safe", and which ones are not?

I actually believe...that was said in Jest...however I appreciate that information.

[1Timothy115]

Not really. You still haven't said why you think the Cambridge edition is correct. You merely state that in acts 11:28 "spirit" is correct not "Spirit" but you give no reason why you think this is so. Are you saying that "Spirit" in that verse is not speaking of the Holy Ghost in your opinion? If so why would you think that?


Another issue I find with your opinion that capitalization is of great importance is that even the Cambridge edition you are endorsing does not seem to be consistent. For example you said that sword searcher used the "pure" Cambridge edition so I went and downloaded that so I could compare it. One of the first things I checked for is consistency in capitalization of "Spirit" when an OT verse containing "Spirit" is quoted in the NT.

Right off I found this example:

"Joe

[PeterAV]

Yes, God's word does that all the time if you cared to look it up.
Far be it that God should send further/farther revelations in the NT.

But we are speaking of the ENGLISH. lol The Hebrew and Greek don't capitalize it in the NT and not in the OT, the capitalization is only an issue in the ENGLISH language so it CAN'T be an issue of advanced revelation found in the NT. lol

[Kayla]

Could the reason be that the Holy Spirit was not residing in men in the O.T.? In the N.T. the Spirit is revealed as God...just wondering.

Like I said before there was NO capitalization in the Old Testament Hebrew, the capitalization that is in the Old Testament was placed there by the KJ translators to make it flow better for English speakers. I noticed that Peter has ignored my post because of two possibilities Either A. He's a Ruckmanite B. He knows I'm right...

[trc123]

PeterAV=Peter Ruckman

[Seth Doty]

Now that IS rich. This is what a multi-versionist would bleat.
As if a translation is not authoritative. Give your head a shake.
Shame on you, for you know very well that all Bibles are translations and copies, but you resort to the "ORIGINALS" exactly as the multi-versionists.

Where did that come from? Lets look at your claims again. First, if I understand you, you are claiming that the Cambridge edition is the only "pure" KJV without as of yet providing any solid reason why you think this is so. You merely make a so far unsupported statement.

Second, if I have understood your position correctly you are saying the English capitalization of words is inspired.

Thirdly, when I pointed that even the edition you are endorsing fails to capitalize "spirit" in an OT passage and then does capitalize Spirit in the NT when that passage from the OT is quoted in the NT(showing that capitalization really isn't that big a deal) you are claim that it is a case of the advanced revelation of the NT.

Then when Kayla and myself point out that capitalization in the Hebrew does not exist in the way it does in English and that it is therefore impossible for "Spirit" to be capitalized in the KJV NT but not in the KJV OT based on additional revelation found in the NT you decide to compare me to the "multi-versionists".

Just because certain people's Doctrines don't align to your pet theories does not negate the truth.

I have been more than fair to your position, I have given it a fair trial and have been examining the issue without any preconceived opinions on the subject. I have never encountered anyone pushing the Cambridge edition as the only pure KJV and therefore had yet to form an opinion on the subject. You have shown me nothing but unsupported statements and a extremely illogical argument which not only is unsupported but can be shown to be completely false.

I don't know who filled your head with this nonsense but I would suggest sitting down and trying to come at it from unbiased perspective again. It just makes no sense. It is wrong.

With that type of attitude of not LOOKing for truth, one will have a hard time accepting Numbers 24: 17 as a true prophecy.
You see? Even a non-believer can be moved by God to declare "further" truth.

I have no idea how you manged to take the leap of logic that because I am skeptical of your unsupported claim that the Cambridge edition is the only pure KJV because of spelling differences that somehow means I am going to have difficulty believing Balaams prophecy is scripture. It seems as if you are rambling.

Besides all of that.. As if the English translators are not aloud to think for themselves and put the truth into proper English. Shame on you Seth. I would have thought better of you.

Huh? for one thing I never said translators "are not aloud to think for themselves and put the truth into proper English". Taking the pure truth from one language and putting it into another is what the jOB of a translator of scripture IS under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Also I have no idea why you decided to add "I would have thought better of you". As far as I know I don't know you and have never had a conversation with you before this thread so that seems a rather odd remark to make...

Every time you resist under further light, you are indeed sinning.
A person that refuses to repent virtually recommits his sin, making him two times the culpable. If rejected once more = double of that = 4 times as culpable,etc.8 16 32 Now how many posts have you rejected and even laughed? very exposing of a certain heart and mind.

If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil and show me from the scripture of truth: but if well then why do you persist in error?

Josh 19:2 should read "or" correct Seth?
Have you learned something?
Do you agree with "or"?
This would constitute for you, further light if you now do. See?

I am sorry, I don't get what your saying. Both the Oxford KJV bible I am using and the Cambridge KJV you are endorsing have the word "or" in that passage. I have no clue what your point is since the passage in both editions seems to read exactly the same?

Believe it or not, Seth, I am FOR you, NOT against you.
But I am against your choice of ignorance.

Well I am for you too, but you haven't showed me that the Cambridge edition of the KJV is somehow better than all others and I was and still am willing to look at your claims with an open mind. So far I haven't been impressed though. So far it seems to me that somewhere along the line someone you respected filled your head with a bunch of nonsense, you believed it and are now pushing it as the truth even though in reality there doesn't seem to be a sjunk of truth behind it.

Surely you CAN see that Josh 19:2 SHOULD read "or" to have any semblance of truth.

Again, I don't follow you since both editions seem to read exactly the same?

Grace and peace...

Seth Doty

[PeterAV]

Could the reason be that the Holy Spirit was not residing in men in the O.T.? In the N.T. the Spirit is revealed as God...just wondering.

*******
Very good question Tim.
I think you have a plausible answer, for sure. At least it is a helper in understanding.

Like I said before there was NO capitalization in the Old Testament Hebrew, the capitalization that is in the Old Testament was placed there by the KJ translators to make it flow better for English speakers. I noticed that Peter has ignored my post because of two possibilities Either A. He's a Ruckmanite B. He knows I'm right...

Kayla, We are not talking of the Hebrew here.
Stop changing the parameters.
We are talking of the purity of the King James Bible.
I have showed you a few errors in Most King James Bibles.
You plainly rejected that.
This is the spirit of unteachability. Or at least stubbornness.
*******
I have NOT ignored your question. I can only type, study and read so fast.
There is no law that I must answer every question instantly.
Get real K?
I have taken weeks to answer certain questions because of the work involved.
There is only one of me, but there are several of you folks. Right Kayla?
Plus Tim was asking about the Spirit and not the Hebrew.
You simply USED his question for your personal propaganda.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
That includes Josh 19:2 reading "or Sheba"
Is every word of YOUR Bible pure?
Think about it.

[trc123]

I have to chuckle at the "Holy Bible, There is only one. AV1611" moniker as you don't even use the actual AV1611 edition when you quote Scripture.

You quote, "Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it.Psalm 119:140" when in fact the AV1611 is "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy seruant loueth it." Notice the different spelling and punctuation of the actual AV1611 from the version you are quoting!

Yeah, I know the AV1611 wasn't a pure Bible, that didn't come until "circa 1900" as it went through a "purification process."

[Seth Doty]

We are not talking of the Hebrew here.
Stop changing the parameters.
We are talking of the purity of the King James Bible.

You were the one that brought up the Hebrew and Greek by claiming the reason "Spirit" was capitalized in the KJV NT but not in the KJV OT was because of advanced revelation found in the NT. If we were sticking to the English and the King James Bible you would have claimed no such thing because this capitalization issue is peculiar to ENGLISH and the bible OBviously was not yet in English when the NT was given.

I have showed you a few errors in Most King James Bibles.
You plainly rejected that. This is the spirit of unteachability. Or at least stubbornness.

That is just silly. You showed a VERY small number of spelling differences that changed NOTHING, you did not even ATTEMPT to show why one spelling was right and the other wrong, and then you have the nerve to claim that we are having a spirit of unteachability because we are not blindly accepting what you say but are instead looking to the scriptures and testing your claims to see if they are true. You may believe that is a spirit of unteachability, but my bible says this:

"1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

Every word of God is pure:
That includes Josh 19:2 reading "or Sheba"
Is every word of YOUR Bible pure?
Think about it.

I keep telling you that the passage is EXACTLY the same in both editions. Why are you fixated on a OBscure verse that is EXACTLY the same anyway?

[PeterAV]

Seth, do you remember this?

My bible is an oxford study bible but it reads the same as the Cambridge edition you reference in most of the places you mention.

Where it differs:

So why are you claiming there is no prOBlem, when you showed several differences in your Bible?
O right, differences matter not, Right Seth?
You run to a couple of verses that happened to match, when I told you all 12 MUST be letter perfect.
Plus I told you that other King James Bibles do not have the proper reading at Josh 19:2, that they read "and Sheba" which is clearly wrong.
Just because your certain Bible has a few that are right is NOT the point.
The point is, that all 12 must be right to feel and be vindicated.
The point is, that both of your bibles are not 100% correct at every word.
You agreed that you have bible differences.
*******
You folk keep saying I have proved nothing.
Well then, study for yourself a few years and see what you come up with.
There must be a final standard.
The Bible is that final standard, but not yours in every letter.
Your Bible acceptance produces a whateverist attitude, similar to Muli-versionists.
When can your Bible be the final standard when it contains OBvious error?
*******
Grow and understand and be blessed in the purity of the word of God.
Is his word very pure?
Is every word very pure?
They are if they line up with these 12 indicator verses exactly letter for letter.
The PCE is the final Textus Receptus in English.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

[Seth Doty]

Seth, do you remember this?

So why are you claiming there is no prOBlem, when you showed several differences in your Bible?
O right, differences matter not, Right Seth?
You run to a couple of verses that happened to match, when I told you all 12 MUST be letter perfect.
Plus I told you that other King James Bibles do not have the proper reading at Josh 19:2, that they read "and Sheba" which is clearly wrong.
Just because your certain Bible has a few that are right is NOT the point.
The point is, that all 12 must be right to feel and be vindicated.
The point is, that both of your bibles are not 100% correct at every word.
You agreed that you have bible differences.

They are only SPELLING differences. The original 1611 KJV spells words differently too but that doesn't make it a corrupt impure bible. Further you still have not showed ANY reason why the Cambridges spellings are better. You simply state that they are and expect us to take your word for it on faith. I am sorry, but I don't know you well enough to trust you on that.

[PeterAV]

The original Hebrew text doesn't really have capitalization...so it is kind of irrelevant to argue on the point of Capitalization in the Old Testament as the point of desertion to a King James Bible. We have Capitalization in English because that is the way our language is written, to flow more English translators of past added Capitalization. Even languages like French have completely different capitalization rules, they don't capitalize days of the week or month names...I don't think you can argue Capitalization as a point to throw out a King James Bible. I can almost see your point on this further-farther thing...but look at the context of Matt 26:39 OBviously when reads the verse it only makes sense for it to mean that he went farther/further along...

And how do you feel about Italized text Peter, is it inspired by God??

*******
WOW! Now you are getting desperate at grasping straws to make a straw man argument.
I don't care about the Hebrew OT. I am talking of our English Bible.
I don't care about how the Greek was written or the Hebrew or any others that were involved with the making of the English Bible.
What I am concerned about, is the purity of the English Bible, period.
*******
All of the word of God in English is the pure word of God including the italics, Kayla.
The inspired word is now preserved in the King James text including the italics.
They have correctly translated for the English to understand.
The italics are just as legitimate as any other word in the Holy Bible, Period.
*******

.I don't think you can argue Capitalization as a point to throw out a King James Bible.

When have I ever said to throw out a King James Bible?

Good grief, It is about English Biblical presentational purity, not about tossing out bibles.
You can choose to use tainted Bibles if you want, I am simply showing that there is a perfect King James Bible. That nOBody can find error with, but we can find errors with the non-PCE King James Bibles. Even you almost agree.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
Including 'further" in Matthew 26:39
Farther is incorrect biblical English here, and not as accurate as further.

[Seth Doty]

All of the word of God in English is the pure word of God including the italics, Kayla.
The inspired word is now preserved in the King James text including the italics.
They have correctly translated for the English to understand.
The italics are just as legitimate as any other word in the Holy Bible, Period.

Whew... thats about the first thing you have said that I can agree with. The italics is necessary for the meaning to survive the translation in a number of cases.