Is the Case of all pronouns in the KJV correct standard English?

[praise_yeshua]

I do believe in infallibility AND inerrancy. Those terms apply to the originals.

Yes, but I also believe that they apply to Scripture in general, e.g. the KJB today.

Well... you can't have the terms
They were never meant for the KJV.

Are you actually admitting that you do not believe the Scripture is infallible and inerrant today?

Certainly not in the KJV. It contains several errors and actually omits several Scriptures. This includes your "pce".

 

[bibleprotector]

Certainly not in the KJV. It contains several errors and actually omits several Scriptures. This includes your "pce".

You must have a personal, relative, subjective standard today then.

 

[FSSL]

Are you actually admitting that you do not believe the Scripture is infallible and inerrant today?

Why do you insist on using terms that were never designed to speak to the exclusivity of the KJV. Come up with your own terminology since you want to use your own definition.

Is the original 1611 edition inerrant?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Here is the original KJV.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1


The Gold Standard. The most pure.

Much tinkering has occurred over the years by self appointed revisers and editors.

Just pick up one of the copies you have and compare it to the Gold Standard.

This is the one to which we compare all of the other various editions that are called KJV.

This one has everything the translators intended. It has all the books that have been striped from the modern KJV editions.

Don't you suppose both Bilson and Smith were hovering around the King's printer as it was being manufactured? They were the final editors.

It is full and complete and is not mutilated by modern-day do-gooders who believing that they are improving upon what the KJV translators wrote and see no problem in stripping out vast sections of vital historical information, going so far as to remove the TTTR that Miles Smith so masterfully prepared to help all who would read it understand exactly how the translators did their work.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Certainly not in the KJV. It contains several errors and actually omits several Scriptures. This includes your "pce".

You must have a personal, relative, subjective standard today then.

The KJV is the personal, relative, subjective standard of those who trumpet it. Don't pretend its anything else. Varying manuscripts have been used by different peoples throughout the history. It is impossible for you to claim otherwise...... nor prove that God, Himself, preferred one manuscript over the other. All we have at our disposal are logic, reason, and the leading of the Spirit of God.

I'm certain you claim to know the leading the Spirit better than I do but your choices are contrary to reason and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Sorry. I'll take reason over your claims of divine guidance. This world is full of too many people claiming to lead by God all the while saying different things and making dramatically different claims. God doesn't work that way....

 

[bibleprotector]

Why do you insist on using terms that were never designed to speak to the exclusivity of the KJV. Come up with your own terminology since you want to use your own definition.

Is the original 1611 edition inerrant?

First, inerrancy and infallibility are not specifically tied to, and are not being used by me in some kind of exclusive relation to the KJB.

Second, since Scripture itself is inerrant and infallible, then it was so since inspiration.

Third, there is a marked difference, and let me repeat, a very big divide in ideas, between the notion of the Scripture's truth, and the accuracy of a text and translation. Furthermore, there is a sharp distinction between those issues, and typographical exactness.

Here we have the following chart, in outline:

An original autograph: was scripture: was infallible and inerrant: was a perfect text: had no typographical/copyist errors.

An original language copy: was scripture: was infallible and inerrant: was a reliable text: had a few minor typographical/copyist errors.

A Latin translation (Vulgate): was scripture: was infallible and inerrant: was a reliable text and translation though not perfect: had a few typographical/copyist errors.

A Geneva Version: was scripture: was infallible and inerrant: was a reliable text and translation though not perfect: had a few typographical/copyist errors.

The 1611 Edition of the KJB: was scripture: was infallible and inerrant: was a perfect text and perfect translation: had a few typographical/copyist errors.

A current copy of the KJB which is used today (PCE): is scripture: is infallible and inerrant: is a perfect text and perfect translation: has no typographical/copyist errors.

Therefore, the 1611 Edition is inerrant, because it is Scripture. This is besides the fact that print errors or unstandardised spelling was used.

 

[bibleprotector]

The Gold Standard. The most pure.

The same text (readings) and translation that was there in 1611 is here today. If you designate it the gold standard then, the same is the gold standard today, since we have the same in our current editions. It is still the same version, still the same translation.

Much tinkering has occurred over the years by self appointed revisers and editors.

That is a somewhat conspiratorial view. First, that changes made were editorial in nature, "normal", and accepted. Second, that those who undertook such tasks were authorised or dealing in line with what might be called "custodianship". Just because jumped up folks have fiddled (e.g. recent new editions) about does not actually have anything to do with the accepted tradition.

Just pick up one of the copies you have and compare it to the Gold Standard.

False logic. The 1611 Edition contained typographical errors, therefore, it is not, on a jot and tittle level, the gold standard, as is well known.

This is the one to which we compare all of the other various editions that are called KJV.

For editorial purposes, not because its typography is perfect, because it isn't.

This one has everything the translators intended. It has all the books that have been striped from the modern KJV editions.

Although the text and translation of 1611 has never gone away or been changed in the normal tradition of ensuing editions, there have been editorial improvements. However, it is incorrect to assert that the absence of non-canonical books in most recent printings is somehow a change as misrepresented by your emotive language. Surely, that is a dishonest assertion.

Don't you suppose both Bilson and Smith were hovering around the King's printer as it was being manufactured? They were the final editors.

Conjecture at best. Typographical errors occurred regardless. But what you are arguing for will upset others on your own side, who pretend that the first and ensuing printings do or may not match the final master copy handed to the printers. Your own argumentation here nullifies their objections.

It is full and complete and is not mutilated by modern-day do-gooders who believing that they are improving upon what the KJV translators wrote and see no problem in stripping out vast sections of vital historical information, going so far as to remove the TTTR that Miles Smith so masterfully prepared to help all who would read it understand exactly how the translators did their work.

This is quite a misdirected statement. Whether or not the TTTTR is printed has not effect on Scripture. But we see another problem, of course, that modernists wilfully misread and misrepresent the contents of said material. If you understood the TTTTR you wouldn't be attacking the KJB like you do, since the TTTTR argues for the KJB, not against it or for modern versions.

 

[bibleprotector]

I'm certain you claim to know the leading the Spirit better than I do but your choices are contrary to reason and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Sorry. I'll take reason over your claims of divine guidance. This world is full of too many people claiming to lead by God all the while saying different things and making dramatically different claims. God doesn't work that way....

Wow. And when I never made any such statement, you just assume that I must be a mystic, blindly muttering that the KJB is right because "Thus saith the Spirit". Really?

But contrary to your views which seem to be in praise of rationalism, of course, that is dramatically different to God's ways, and He doesn't work in that carnal-minded way.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm certain you claim to know the leading the Spirit better than I do but your choices are contrary to reason and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Sorry. I'll take reason over your claims of divine guidance. This world is full of too many people claiming to lead by God all the while saying different things and making dramatically different claims. God doesn't work that way....

Wow. And when I never made any such statement, you just assume that I must be a mystic, blindly muttering that the KJB is right because "Thus saith the Spirit". Really?

But contrary to your views which seem to be in praise of rationalism, of course, that is dramatically different to God's ways, and He doesn't work in that carnal-minded way.

LOL... you're a piece of work. Just how did you come to the conclusion I'm listening to my carnal mind?

 

[FSSL]

Therefore, the 1611 Edition is inerrant, because it is Scripture. This is besides the fact that print errors or unstandardised spelling was used.

Non sequitur... begging the question... redefining terms and outright contradictions.

I don't understand why you think that explanation works.

 

[bibleprotector]

Therefore, the 1611 Edition is inerrant, because it is Scripture. This is besides the fact that print errors or unstandardised spelling was used.

Non sequitur... begging the question... redefining terms and outright contradictions.

I don't understand why you think that explanation works.

You seem to be thinking that the Scripture is not inerrant and not infallible, except for the original autographs. Is that what you are really saying?

 

[FSSL]

I am using the words as they have been defined and historically used.

Why do you insist that you have a right to change the definitions and use the terms to pertain to only your edition of the KJV?

 

[bibleprotector]

I am using the words as they have been defined and historically used.

Why do you insist that you have a right to change the definitions and use the terms to pertain to only your edition of the KJV?

What are you talking about? I say scripture, meaning, any copy, version or translation (i.e. not a reference to those things in any specificity), and you WRONGLY claim that I am speaking specifically of only one edition of the KJB.

 

[FSSL]

I revisited your post above and see that you do say the latin and geneva Bibles are inerrant and infallible.

The problem is that you have to redefine those terms.

You are negating the original and historical meaning of inerrancy. The word inerrant means "without error" and only refer to documents with direct inspiration.

Your self-proclaimed edition is the one you proclaim to be free of all kinds of errors, just like the originals.

You know that you are misapplying the term.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I revisited your post above and see that you do say the latin and geneva Bubles are inerrant and infallible.

The problem is that you have to redefine those terms.

You are negating the original and historical meaning of inerrancy. The word inerrant means "without error" and only refer to documents with direct inspiration.

You know that you are misapplying the term.

They always do....

 

[bgwilkinson]

I revisited your post above and see that you do say the latin and geneva Bubles are inerrant and infallible.

The problem is that you have to redefine those terms.

You are negating the original and historical meaning of inerrancy. The word inerrant means "without error" and only refer to documents with direct inspiration.

Your self-proclaimed edition is the one you proclaim to be free of all kinds of errors, just like the originals.

You know that you are misapplying the term.

Quote;
"The word inerrant means "without error" and only refers to documents with direct inspiration."

The native languages are the only ones breathed out by the Holy Spirit.

Translations are an interpretation of those God breathed Words.

The Old Testament in15 Hebrew which was the native language of the people of God of old, and the New Testament in Greek which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations, being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore16 authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them17.

But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read18 and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they19 come, that the Word of God dwelling20 plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.

15Romans 3:2; 16Isaiah 8:20; 17Acts 15:15; 18John 5:39; 19I Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28; 20Colossians

 

[bgwilkinson]

Why do you insist on using terms that were never designed to speak to the exclusivity of the KJV. Come up with your own terminology since you want to use your own definition.

Is the original 1611 edition inerrant?

First, inerrancy and infallibility are not specifically tied to, and are not being used by me in some kind of exclusive relation to the KJB.

Second, since Scripture itself is inerrant and infallible, then it was so since inspiration.

Third, there is a marked difference, and let me repeat, a very big divide in ideas, between the notion of the Scripture's truth, and the accuracy of a text and translation. Furthermore, there is a sharp distinction between those issues, and typographical exactness.

Here we have the following chart, in outline:

An original autograph: was scripture: was infallible and inerrant: was a perfect text: had no typographical/copyist errors.

An original language copy: was scripture: was infallible and inerrant: was a reliable text: had a few minor typographical/copyist errors.

A Latin translation (Vulgate): was scripture: was infallible and inerrant: was a reliable text and translation though not perfect: had a few typographical/copyist errors.

A Geneva Version: was scripture: was infallible and inerrant: was a reliable text and translation though not perfect: had a few typographical/copyist errors.

The 1611 Edition of the KJB: was scripture: was infallible and inerrant: was a perfect text and perfect translation: had a few typographical/copyist errors.

A current copy of the KJB which is used today (PCE): is scripture: is infallible and inerrant: is a perfect text and perfect translation: has no typographical/copyist errors.

Therefore, the 1611 Edition is inerrant, because it is Scripture. This is besides the fact that print errors or unstandardised spelling was used.

BP why don't you just go with what Miles Smith said in TTTR.

See here

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=6

Here is what he said about the target languages and their importance relative to the original languages.

"If you ask what they had before them, truely it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.

These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where through the olive branches emptie themselves into the golde. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or original tongues; Saint Jierome fountaines.

The same Saint Jierome affirmith, and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his Degree.

That, as the credit of the olde books (he meaneth of the Old Teatament) is to be tryed by the Hebrew Volumes, so of the New by the Greeke tongue, he meaneth by the originall Greeke.

If trueth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them?

These tongues therefore, the Scriptures wee say in those tongues, wee set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speake to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles."


All translations according to Miles Smith's writing for the KJV translators are to be tried by the original languages. They use Augustine's word precedent. Latin meaning, go before, precede; surpass, excel.

BP, I ascribe to the methods and philosophy of translation outlined by Miles Smith. I am a great fan of their eclectic method of choosing each reading, based on a variety of texts, both original languages and versions.

I would think that you, BP, as a fan and defender of the KJV would ascribe to their methods also, as well as being intimately aware of them.

I have dropped hints from the TTTR to see if you might be aware of what Miles has said in his work but you seem to draw blanks.

It would be in your interest to actually study what Miles said.  It sure would help you understand the background of the English Bible.

Most people have no idea what Miles said or believed about bible translation.

 

[bibleprotector]

The word inerrant means "without error" and only refer to documents with direct inspiration.

Many others who use and support modern versions do not agree. They think it means the Scripture itself, not its written form. You are essentially taking a more liberal approach than your compatriots on this issue.

 

[bibleprotector]

I have dropped hints from the TTTR to see if you might be aware of what Miles has said in his work but you seem to draw blanks.

I suspect you misapply. And by the way, I have read and written more extensively about the TTTTR than most people.

It would be in your interest to actually study what Miles said.  It sure would help you understand the background of the English Bible.

You mean like this early study, http://www.bibleprotector.com/prefatory_materials.pdf and these more mature thoughts, http://www.bibleprotector.com/good_hand.pdf ?

 

[FSSL]

The word inerrant means "without error" and only refer to documents with direct inspiration.

Many others who use and support modern versions do not agree. They think it means the Scripture itself, not its written form. You are essentially taking a more liberal approach than your compatriots on this issue.

So? How does a bandwagoning argument help?

Many people, just like yourself, do not understand the historical application and theological basis of imerrancy.

You cannot have inerrancy without direct inspiration.