Getting discouraged with KJ publishers

[1Timothy115]

I qoute Jerry below from a post in 2004. I would agree with his comment. The discussion is virtually the same.

Jerry 09-18-2004, 05:54 PM
http://onlinebaptist.com/messageboards/thread-8452-post-19616.html#pid19616
Post: #15
I think this is a sidetrack that a Christian should be cautious of. Satan wants us to be so paranoid and busy looking under every rock and around every tree to spot error that we don't get the work of the Lord done! Or we spend all our time arguing about wording about this or that publisher/edition, etc. that we don't present the Gospel to the lost.

[JerryNumbers]

[PeterAV]

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.

OK, put it this way Seth, All King James Bible are the word of God.
All King James Bibles are even the pure word of God, because they are translated from correct texts correctly.
There are, however typos and other Publisher eratta.
*******

The original 1611 KJV spells words differently too but that doesn't make it a corrupt impure bible.

Correct, any KJB is the pure word of God.
I am talking of presentation including spellings.
Besides we both know that the spellings had not regularized as yet, until 1769. All KJ Bibles stem from that Oxford Bible.
*******
But there is only one Pure Holy Bible that is presentationaly pure even in the very spellings. That is the PCE.
After all, Matthew 5:18 really does carry lots of weight against your statement. Namely,

They are only SPELLING differences.

*******
You ask for proof?
I will ask you this.
Joshua 19:2 Reads in some King James Bibles "and Sheba"; others read "or Sheba". Which is the right reading?
If you say "or Sheba" then you still need to KNOW that there are other King James Bibles out there that do not have "or Sheba". I think you would agree that "and Sheba" is incorrect, right?
*******
This should be proof enough, but I will show you empirical truth, if you must.
So I will show you what various King James Bibles read on this one verse as an example.
*******
Joshua 19:2 "or Sheba" PCE 1900-2009
Baker large print "and Sheba"
Gideons 1967 edition "and Sheba"
American Bible Society " or Sheba"
Cambridge non PCE "or Sheba"
*******
Well I have dozens more, but this is a good indicator.
*******
Which is correct?
It is quite OBvious that "or Sheba" is correct. Right?
Context solves that one very easily.
*******
So there you have it.
But you already knew there were differences between Various King James Bibles.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

[PeterAV]

I qoute Jerry below from a post in 2004. I would agree with his comment. The discussion is virtually the same.

No, not true.
It is people gaining new knowledge of the Bible issue and seeing how they deal with it.
I certainly am not promoting paranoia. But I am exalting the pure word of God and showing it to you by making a defense.
The issue is;How will you deal with the new info such as Joshua 19:2 etc.?
It is true that some folk get very disheartened when they see that their pure Bible really is not letter perfect. But now they know, and can grow and publish the pure word of God and disciple the nations with all confidence, knowing that every letter is perfect, with absolutely no errata.
*******
The old argument that any King James Bible is good enough, just does not cut it when we now know the truth.
Any King James Bible is still very USEFUL, but not all King James bibles are presentationaly pure. Some of those impurities that linger in some King James bibles may affect doctrine. Matthew 5:18
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
"and Sheba" is not pure.
This is all I am doing, is showing you a better way.

[Kayla]

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.

Then I am done arguing, however I make one more point because OBviously you have a different idea about what the Bible is than what I do. OBviously, all those years before the King James came out according to you the people didn't have the pure scriptures...I beg to differ on that point. And I do believe that the Hebrew Old Testament is important. But, OBviously you don't care. So I am done arguing with you about the Bible at all.

You claim I don't have a Teachable spirit, but I believe in fact that the three fingers pointing back at you are more accurate in this point.

[Kayla]

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.

I think they are important for the flow of the text. However I think they go along about to the point of Capitalization.

[PeterAV]

Also you haven't said anything about the other passage I mentioned, Acts 10:19-20 and Acts 11:11-12. The Cambridge seems inconsistent in capitalization there too. Ironically when I checked my oxford bible in those verses it is consistent and "Spirit" is capitalized in both places. I don't know that the oxford is consistent everywhere in capitalization but it is a little amusing that it so far seems more consistent than the Cambridge edition you are pushing as the "pure" KJV strictly over spelling issues.

*******
All King James Bible read Spirit in Acts 10:19.
It is the Oxford that is inconsistent, for there is no early witness for a capital in the word "spirit" in Acts 11:12
So Oxford fails the "age" test.
*******
Also no legitimate revision introduced the Oxford reading.
Oxford fails the Revision test.
*******
Oxford is guilty of silent changes without any names being given. It was secretly done. The change is deliberate.

It is a modern arbitrary change, [hidden scribe]
So Oxford has textual corruption.
*******
And since the Greek word pneuma is always spelled in uniform letters making no distinction for capitals, we don't go to the Greek for help.
*******
The spirit bade him :12
Notice the internal witness.
:13 shows an external witness.
Oxford undermines Peter's internal receptiveness.[info gleaned from BibleProtector dot com]
*******
So Cambridge is not inconsistent as you surmise. In fact, the Oxford failed several simple tests just on this one, alone.
*******
As you can now see, simple spelling issues can be important.
According to Jesus, the word of God should be absolute, to the jot and tittle, and not be changed.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:
That includes the word "spirit" in Acts 11:12 in the PCE
No more irony now that you know the truth.

[PeterAV]

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."

But I do use the 1611 edition many times. I also use the 1769 edition of the 1611, along with a myriad of other editions of the 1611 Bible.
How many times do I have to say this?
The AV is the pure word of God regardless of the year.
BUT
The King James Bible was never presentationaly pure including spellings, until the final work was done over 100 years ago.
*******
And yes, I was quoting from the 1611. It is the same text that we have today.American Bible Society backs this up with their own quote.
"the text is unchanged since 1611"

Yeh, I know that you think impurity is OK.= old school KJBO
The King James went through several purifyings. Something wrong with using updated spellings? Would you like to ALWAYS read 1611, if you had something more flowing, but unchanged as to the text?
*******
Yours is a simple straw man shoved out there to make it APPEAR that you might have a point. But I have seen many a multi- versionists say the very same thing with the very same attitude you display.
*******
At least now you know the truth.
1611 IS the pure word of God.
But spellings are now finalized, along with any other Publisher errata.
So now we have the Pure word of God purified PRESENTATIONALY.
*******
Letter perfect.
Just stating facts.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

[PeterAV]

Wow, I just read that Bible Protector's narrative concerning the Pure Cambridge Edition and was struck by the subtle doctrinal teaching that God's word was purified over time. So, when God gave his Word it was evidently not pure?

This just seems to be some very dangerous slippery slope to me.

"There was also a proper purification that took place circa 1900, which has resulted in the final text of the King James Bible, which is in all ways the definitive presentation of the King James Bible, and should not be altered."

The facts are the facts tcr123, there was spelling improvements to the 1611.
Plus a few other errors to clear up.
*******

So, when God gave his Word it was evidently not pure?

*******
You sound precisely like the multi- versionists.
I will ask you a question.
Is the 1611 edition presentationaly pure without any admixture of error including spellings?
Careful now.
I don't think you want to be quoted as saying that the King James Bible has errors.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

[PeterAV]

This post at least gave me a good laugh!! Just the old "it is so because I said so. I have studied it out so you should accept my word for it." It is crystal clear in the passage, Old or New Testament, that he is speaking of the Holy Spirit. So there needs no advanced revelation. It was clear in the OT. He says 1800 on. What about before? 1611 through 1769 were old English, but how about them. 1769 - 1800, Were they not correct and the proper Bible. Did mankind have to wait til 1800 to get the true correct word of God. If so, how do we know for a fact that they got it right in 1800? If there were flaws for all those centuries, who was inspired by God to get it right. He says that it must be because if it was easy to find the committees would have found it. Perhaps the committees did find it but thought it not important enough to throw out.

*******
You are confused about many things, rancher824.
rancher 824, Did you know that the London Edition about 1800 Erye & Strahan left out spirit in Rev.21:10? Not purified, is it?
Did you know the very same editors also goofed up on Rev 22:17 and omits the word Spirit?
*******
Then you ask the question...[without a question mark indicating that you really are making a statement. Gen 3:1]..

If there were flaws for all those centuries, who was inspired by God to get it right.

We are the priests now. We are the jury. The Bible believer is the final arbiture in this matter. Or did you not know that about our heritage?
*******

He says 1800 on. What about before? 1611 through 1769 were old English, but how about them. 1769 - 1800,

I was only talking of the purity of one verse or word, NOT the whole Bible.
Here are the facts on The two verses that you have a prOBlem with.
Joel 2:28,29 reads
1611-Spirit
1637 Cambridge-spirit
1747 Scotch Edition-spirit
1769 Cambridge-spirit
London 1800-Spirit
All others after 1800-spirit.
*******
Acts 2:18
1611-Spirit
1637-spirit
1769 Cambridge-Spirit
1747 Scotch-spirit
London 1800-Spirit
All others after 1800-Spirit
*******
As you can see, there were a couple of early changes.
Notice that the PCE is correct in all cases here as in all of scripture.
*******

Did mankind have to wait til 1800 to get the true correct word of God.

For the correct spelling? YES for that verse.
Was the Bible complete for the publick in say 400 B.C.?
Was it complete 200 AD?
Believe it or not, God uses time as a legitimate tool.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

[trc123]

Peter, Your comprehension is lacking and I believe that is what is impure, not God's Word. It is preserved in the King James Bible.

Because one version is different from another in spelling or capitalization does not mean it is not God's pure Word. It means it is different. Different doesn't necessarily mean impure. Different just means different. The various versions are not at odds with one another and are just different in minor areas directly related to the translator's understanding at the time.

By the way, I didn't say the King James Bible has errors. You did when you said, "The facts are the facts tcr123, there was spelling improvements to the 1611. Plus a few other errors to clear up."

[JerryNumbers]

Peter, Your comprehension is lacking and I believe that is what is impure, not God's Word. It is preserved in the King James Bible.

Because one version is different from another in spelling or capitalization does not mean it is not God's pure Word. It means it is different. Different doesn't necessarily mean impure. Different just means different. The various versions are not at odds with one another and are just different in minor areas directly related to the translator's understanding at the time.

By the way, I didn't say the King James Bible has errors. You did when you said, "The facts are the facts tcr123, there was spelling improvements to the 1611. Plus a few other errors to clear up."

Is this a case of straining gnats.......................

[trc123]

Is this a case of straining gnats.......................

You are prOBably right. Enough said.

[PeterAV]

It appears that the folks around here are slow to want to grow in this area of the Pure Holy Bible.
Very stand offish for sure.
I have found that some people see the truth of what I say right away.
Then they start looking it all up for themselves.
Others stay in the old mentality of "any KJB is just fine".
While it is true that most any KJB IS the actual pure word of God, I do believe that I have presented some food for thought in this issue to determine just what is the precise letter perfect Bible.
*******
Here is a couple links to show you how I found out all about this.
It culminated in a conversation with Rick Norris.
He is a TR King James preferred man, and has a Jesuit style in his writings.
*******
He asks the question on a daily and post by post basis....Which KJB is the pure word of God?
Well, we all used to say what we all believed, like what you folks do right now.
That is because you have no further light on this issue.
But now I have started to open the door a crack for you kind folk.
*******
I do not take your posts to be offensive towards me, for I know you all care for the Lord and are willing the most amount of good. It is simply the scales on your eyes.
I pray God will remove the scales from your eyes and use the healing eye salve of the pure word of God.
Here is the conversation with Rick and BibleProtector coming on the scene.
This is ground breaking news for the KJBO folk and the whole world.
*******
http://finalauthority48270.yuku.com/topic/1731

Later on, the discussion moved to one of the Yahoo groups called Which Version.
And others as well, Brandon Staggs also switched his King James Bible program to the PCE after a few tests and searches. His forum site also tackles the history making PCE. It has surfaced for for all eyes to see.
I heartily recommend that you take a read of Matthew's Draft for his book.
If you take a few hours to read these threads at Final Authority, you will see history in the making.
Take care, and God bless.

PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

[Jerry]

Wow, Peter, how do we all become part of your elitist club? Are there any membership fees?