Is the label "KJVO" an insult?

[subllibrm]

But if I understand your project correctly, you didn't write anything original.

There's a lot of original writing on my website, I have written blog articles, forum stuff, booklets, books, etc.

You compiled what you decided were the pure(est) variants of the KJV and declared that to be the best of them all.

Incorrect. It has been generally recognised that the Cambridge Edition "is the best", and there is an electronic copy of a specific Cambridge Edition which has been accepted which is presented on my website without any typographical discrepancy.

I'm still not sure what authority you have to make such declarations. Of course that was the point FSSL was making back when he asked about the discrepancy in your handling of spirit and Spirit. It matters when you say it matters and doesn't when you say it doesn't. Now that is some modernist (as you have been using the, otherwise undefined, term) thinking right there.

You are misrepresenting everything. The fact is that the word "Spirit"/"spirit" was not uniform in its presentation in early editions of the KJB, which is an entirely separate issue to the deliberate alterations being made in this regard in very recent decades.

The lack of standardisation in presentation of the printed English language in early years should not be confused with the deliberate changes made by some for theological reasons in recent years.

To the bolded red above: By whom?

You guys talk about the "Authorized Version" as if that means something to God. It was authorized by a king for political purposes. All translations were "authorized" by someone. Who "authorized" you and these folk who "generally accepted" this as the perfectest of the perfect? Where is the paperwork indicating this "authority"?

Avery went to great lengths to explain that pure doesn't mean pure, just purer. Now you are saying that this particular iteration is the pure(est/er) of the pure. For that to be the case, you would have to admit that all other iterations are "less" pure than the one that you have (without any authorization) declared to be the really pure version of all the pure versions. When it comes to logic, you guys can't even get out of your own way.

 

[bibleprotector]

The Cambridge Edition has been acknowledged as the best generally. That is, when people in the know are asked which edition is best or preferred, they will say Cambridge.

 

[subllibrm]

The Cambridge Edition has been acknowledged as the best generally. That is, when people in the know are asked which edition is best or preferred, they will say Cambridge.

Translation: if you weren't an idiot you would agree with me.

 

[Ransom]

The Cambridge Edition has been acknowledged as the best generally. That is, when people in the know are asked which edition is best or preferred, they will say Cambridge.

Why can't you name names? Oh, right - you're a KJV-onlyist, so you are incapable of straight answers.

 

[bibleprotector]

The Cambridge Edition has been acknowledged as the best generally. That is, when people in the know are asked which edition is best or preferred, they will say Cambridge.

Why can't you name names? Oh, right - you're a KJV-onlyist, so you are incapable of straight answers.

Of course I can name names: it is well known across the board. You are just trying to play silly games. Even James White's book, on dealing with differences between the Oxford and the Cambridge, accepted the Cambridge in the instance(s) he discussed.

 

[Ransom]

Of course I can name names: it is well known across the board.

Like giving straight answers, for you it seems well-nigh impossible.

 

[logos1560]

The Cambridge Edition has been acknowledged as the best generally. That is, when people in the know are asked which edition is best or preferred, they will say Cambridge.

There is not one Cambridge edition of the KJV that has remained the same from the 1629 Cambridge edition until today.

    In 2011, Cambridge University Press was evidently printing at least six varying editions of the KJV.  Those six editions are the Concord edition, the Pitt Minion edition, the Standard Text Edition or Emerald edition, the 2011 Clarion edition, the 2011 Transetto Text edition, and the 2011 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton. 

The actual facts from Cambridge editions would demonstrate that there is no one clear-cut typical standard Cambridge edition of the KJV.

 

[FSSL]

... and the 1769 Oxford was the recommended standard in the 1980s.

 

[bibleprotector]

There is not one Cambridge edition of the KJV that has remained the same from the 1629 Cambridge edition until today.

Right.

In 2011, Cambridge University Press was evidently printing at least six varying editions of the KJV.  Those six editions are the Concord edition, the Pitt Minion edition, the Standard Text Edition or Emerald edition, the 2011 Clarion edition, the 2011 Transetto Text edition, and the 2011 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton. 

And yet, there is one pure edition, which is exemplary.

The actual facts from Cambridge editions would demonstrate that there is no one clear-cut typical standard Cambridge edition of the KJV.

So, you are saying that Cambridge was incorrect to publish one of their editions titled as the "Standard Text Edition".

 

[bibleprotector]

... and the 1769 Oxford was the recommended standard in the 1980s.

By all sides of the debate. Even James White's book references the "1769 Cambridge".

 

[FSSL]

I will stick with the Dean Burgon Society's recommendation. Remember, I am a pupil of Thomas Strouse. That is the one he recommended in the 1980s.

 

[logos1560]

There is not one Cambridge edition of the KJV that has remained the same from the 1629 Cambridge edition until today.

Right.

In 2011, Cambridge University Press was evidently printing at least six varying editions of the KJV.  Those six editions are the Concord edition, the Pitt Minion edition, the Standard Text Edition or Emerald edition, the 2011 Clarion edition, the 2011 Transetto Text edition, and the 2011 edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton. 

And yet, there is one pure edition, which is exemplary.

You have not demonstrated that your claim or opinion is correct. 

The fact that you may make a self-serving, biased, subjective claim does not prove that your claim is actually true.

The actual facts from Cambridge editions would demonstrate that there is no one clear-cut typical standard Cambridge edition of the KJV.

So, you are saying that Cambridge was incorrect to publish one of their editions titled as the "Standard Text Edition".

The edition that Cambridge entitled "the Standard Text Edition" has many differences from your so-called PCE.  In some places, that Standard Text Edition may have renderings or spellings that would be considered more standard, consistent, up-to-date, or better than some in your so-called PCE.

1 Chronicles 2:55 [Hammath--1560 Geneva; Hemath--1602 Bishops] [see Josh. 19:35--same Hebrew word] [see also 1 Chron. 13:5, 1 Kings 8:65]
Hammath [1985 Cambridge, 1953 PM, CSTE, 1972, 2011 Cameo, 2011 PMR] (2010 LCBP) (NCE) [NKJV]
Hamath [1648, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] (2006 PENG)
Hemath (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Amos 6:14 [Hamath--1560 Geneva, NKJV; Hemath--1602 Bishops] [see 1 Kings 8:65, Amos 6:2--Hamath]
Hamath (1772, 1777, 1784, 1788, 1792, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1778, 1795, 1800, 1817, 1822, 1824, 1985, 2005, 2011 Cambridge, 1953 PM, CSTE, 1972, 2011 Cameo, 2011 PMR] {1660, 1747, 1750, 1813, 1814, 1817, 1824, 1853, 1879 London} (1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1820, 1827, 1842, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1782 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1782 Aitken) (1790 Bolton) (1791, 1816 Collins) (1791 Thomas) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1813 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1804 Gower) (1807 Johnson) (1809, 1810, 1818, 1826 Boston) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1843, 1851, 1853, 1855, 1858, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1984, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1831 Brown) (1832 PSE) (1832 Scott) (1835 Towar) (1836, 1848 Hartford) (1836 Stebbing) (1843, 1856 AFBS) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1854, 1876 Harding) (1910 Collins) (1945 World) (1948 WSE) (1958 Hertel) (1975, 1978, 2008 GID) (WMCRB) (2003 IGC) (2006 PENG) (2010 BEAMS) (2010 LCBP) (NCE) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
Hemath (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1790 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[bgwilkinson]

Here is my favorite edition.

It combines the Bible with full cross-references and is in the classic Pitt Minion format, noted for its elegant layout. Its one shortcoming is the lack of the Apocrypha.

The Prayer Book contains the time-honoured text of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, used in homes and churches throughout the world.

With this one beautiful book in hand a convinced Baptist can show why he is not an Anglican or a Catholic.

The leather is that of a fine baseball glove or a pair of Stacy Adams shoes, heavenly.

Great teaching tool and great for just reading too.

If you're a Baptist who is feeling a little bit Anglican it was made for you.

It is a bit pricey but consider the quality, genuine Cambridge.

This has all the elements of the Anglican religion under one cover.

http://www.amazon.com/Heritage-Prayer-CPKJ424-Purple-Leather/dp/1107032717/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1417921956&sr=8-2&keywords=prayer+book+and+bible+cambridge

 

[FSSL]

I wish I had actually owned a 1769 Oxford. They were not available.

 

[bibleprotector]

The edition that Cambridge entitled "the Standard Text Edition" has many differences from your so-called PCE.  In some places, that Standard Text Edition may have renderings or spellings that would be considered more standard, consistent, up-to-date, or better than some in your so-called PCE.

Who "may" consider the so-called "Standard Text Edition" to be "better" in "some" few places than the PCE?

Could this be the same as saying, some Muslims may disagree with the King James Bible? Or, some atheists may question the wording in some passage in the King James Bible?

Of course some people may question anything, and may consider something else, a thing that they prefer, appeals to their bias or is based on their postmodernist sensibilities.

1 Chronicles 2:55 [Hammath--1560 Geneva; Hemath--1602 Bishops] [see Josh. 19:35--same Hebrew word] [see also 1 Chron. 13:5, 1 Kings 8:65]
Hammath [1985 Cambridge, 1953 PM, CSTE, 1972, 2011 Cameo, 2011 PMR] (2010 LCBP) (NCE) [NKJV]
Hamath [1648, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] (2006 PENG)
Hemath (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Amos 6:14 [Hamath--1560 Geneva, NKJV; Hemath--1602 Bishops] [see 1 Kings 8:65, Amos 6:2--Hamath]
Hamath (1772, 1777, 1784, 1788, 1792, 1795, 1804, 1810 Oxford) [1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1778, 1795, 1800, 1817, 1822, 1824, 1985, 2005, 2011 Cambridge, 1953 PM, CSTE, 1972, 2011 Cameo, 2011 PMR] {1660, 1747, 1750, 1813, 1814, 1817, 1824, 1853, 1879 London} (1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1820, 1827, 1842, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1782 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1782 Aitken) (1790 Bolton) (1791, 1816 Collins) (1791 Thomas) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1813 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1804 Gower) (1807 Johnson) (1809, 1810, 1818, 1826 Boston) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1843, 1851, 1853, 1855, 1858, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1984, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1827 Smith) (1828 MH) (1831 Brown) (1832 PSE) (1832 Scott) (1835 Towar) (1836, 1848 Hartford) (1836 Stebbing) (1843, 1856 AFBS) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1854, 1876 Harding) (1910 Collins) (1945 World) (1948 WSE) (1958 Hertel) (1975, 1978, 2008 GID) (WMCRB) (2003 IGC) (2006 PENG) (2010 BEAMS) (2010 LCBP) (NCE) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
Hemath (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1790 Cambridge, DKJB]

In a way that could be considered "quote mining", but we have already long covered the ground regarding the issues of editorial variations in editions of the KJB.

The answer to the issue that you raise obliquely is here, if you dare click on it: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6XF8984ar9NMGlNUkpCMkxfeUE/view

 

[logos1560]

The edition that Cambridge entitled "the Standard Text Edition" has many differences from your so-called PCE.  In some places, that Standard Text Edition may have renderings or spellings that would be considered more standard, consistent, up-to-date, or better than some in your so-called PCE.

Who "may" consider the so-called "Standard Text Edition" to be "better" in "some" few places than the PCE?

Cambridge University Press which presently prints its "Standard Text Edition" but does not presently print your so-called PCE would evidently consider it to be better.

The printers of some other present KJV editions who have the same spellings and renderings as those found in the Cambridge Standard Text Edition would evidently consider them to be better.

Those who objectively consult standard authorities on present standard English would consider some renderings or spellings in the Cambridge Standard Text Edition to be more standard, consistent, up-to-date, or better than some in your so-called PCE.

 

[bibleprotector]

Cambridge University Press which presently prints its "Standard Text Edition" but does not presently print your so-called PCE would evidently consider it to be better.

Cambridge prints the NIV, NTL ESV, NASB and NRSV too, so perhaps they consider those to be equal to the STE KJV.

The printers of some other present KJV editions who have the same spellings and renderings as those found in the Cambridge Standard Text Edition would evidently consider them to be better.

I thought that in fact you would believe it was really just by default, chance and convenience that one or other edition is selected by certain publishers. Are you saying that edition differences and distinctions have been well known, and have been particular factors upon the great variety of publishers?

After all, the CSTE is directly based upon the final form of the London Edition (Eyre and Spottiswoode). Could you interpret this as their deference to a non-Cambridge tradition?

Those who objectively consult standard authorities on present standard English would consider some renderings or spellings in the Cambridge Standard Text Edition to be more standard, consistent, up-to-date, or better than some in your so-called PCE.

Your appeal to what appears to be secular standards is here incorrect in context of the normal tradition of the King James Bible publication. Your use of the word "objectively" cannot be accepted in this discussion, as your view is highly prejudicial against what is commonly (including potentially ignorantly) accepted as the "norm" in KJB editions.

A person similar to yourself could use the London Eyre and Spottiswoode edition from the circa 1950s to argue against your position, since you have no final standard of appeal but personal preference, modern sensibilities and relative "authenticity".

Appealing to subjective, relativistic and prejudicially non-traditional/non-common benchmarks cannot stand as an argument against actual Biblically-derived and self-authenticating standards.

 

[bibleprotector]

This has been our argument against Bibleprotector. So far he has not provided objectivity.

Neither do you or your side. You have your human standards of appeal, which will always reason that the KJB is imperfect. Your side is based on assumptions appealing to sight and what can be rationally extrapolated from what is seen. There is nothing truly objective about it, but then, objectivity is not the goal. Alignment to truth is. And your side does not have Biblical doctrines in its approach to textual, translational, editorial and interpretative issues.

Turning our arguments around to us NOTHING to establish your position. It is silliness because none of us are making the same claims you make.

Your claims are very similar, in the opposite direction. You claim that no version or translation is perfect. You are adamant this is so. There is no divine authority for such claims, as they are thoroughly human based on human experience.

You reject Burgon Society's claim that the 1769 Oxford is the standard. Why?

Well, do you accept that James White is right to specifically reference the "1769 Cambridge Edition"?

 

[bibleprotector]

The fallible translation decisions of one exclusive group of imperfect Church of England priests/scholars [critics of the pre-1611 English Bibles] in 1611 and inconsistent, imperfect editing decisions of later KJV editors are not "self-authenticating standards."

The real conflict of world views here is of Bible-believing faith versus Infidelity.

Infidelity has the deistic component that says that God's Word is subject to mere fallible human interference in regards to its text-form, its translation, its editing and its interpretation. Of course you are unwilling to accept overarching providence that operates and overcomes the supposed difficulties of haphazard and fissiparous human activities.

Instead of observing a time-decay or entropy, you should be recognising divine providential occurrences of brilliance and surprise.

This is what the Bible teaches. "But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me." (Romans 10:20). Instead, you are struggling to understand how perfection can arise from imperfection, "For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it." (Isaiah 28:20). You see that the KJB can only be less able to do what God did in the beginning with inspiration. That is deism.

You are, in fact, a master in that wrong school of thought, far advanced in searching out so many overwhelming, vexing, plaguing errors, that my responses to you must elicit a desire to so utterly refute them, like Professor Richard Lewontin, in this famous quote:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.

 

[rsc2a]

After reading the arguments from BP, BB, Avery, binacachugger and others,  I'm convinced...

...Latin Vulgate only is the proper Christian position for Bible believers.