Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[George Affleck]

It has become nothing but something to mark the KJVO believers as causing division.

Yes, us Johnny-come-lately's are upstarts. That's the way it is with the new cults. Give them a Bible and 400 years later; look what happens.

 

[Tico]

Hi DesertReign. Sir, I have been saying the same thing since the beginning. No Bible version has been gone over with a fine tooth comb and checked for accuracy than the King James Bible. Those who maintain the purity of the KJB are the Cambridge printers, and I have also posted a couple of printing houses here in the USA that are very meticulous about weeding out the printing errors and maintaining a pure text.

Go to any bookstore and buy or order a Cambridge printing of the King James Bible. You won't find printing dates on most of them because they don't use them. You won't find copyright dates, because the KJB has never been revised. The specific underlying Hebrew and Greek texts that were used for this masterpiece, have never changed. This is in sharp contrast to versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, etc.

I can't tell you a specific date because there is none. But any Cambridge King James Bible you can get in any bookstore today is the real deal.

Don't make this more difficult than it is. It is really quite simple.

I hope your expressed desire for an inerrant Bible is sincere. May God grant you the faith and understanding to believe it.

God bless.

Who authorized Cambridge to maintain the purity of the KJB? When did Cambridge finally know it had a pure version to maintain? How did Cambridge know it was pure?

 

[genuineoriginal]

The context of this statement was the use of marginal notes to explain the meaning of some Hebrew and Greek words which either carry several meanings or for rare animals or precious stones. Please note the full context of the phrase in question:

The King James Bible translators write: "There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. AGAIN, THERE ARE MANY RARE NAMES OF CERTAIN BIRDS, BEASTS, AND PRECIOUS STONES, &c., CONCERNING WHICH THE HEBREWS THEMSELVES ARE SO DIVIDED AMONG THEMSELVES FOR JUDGEMENT.... NOW IN SUCH A CASE, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.

The margin note at 2 Chronicles 9:6 points out that the Hebrew had a phrase that was not included in the translation.

This shows that margin notes were never limited to rare animals and precious stones.

If this and many other examples from the margins are used to admonish the reader to seek further in the Hebrew and in the Greek and not dogmatize the English translation preemptorily, then why do KJV Only advocates keep complaining whenever any reader seeks further?
Is it the intention of KJV Only advocates to dogmatize the words?
(From your actions, I can only conclude that it is your intention.)

 

[Desert Reign]

Hi DesertReign. Sir, I have been saying the same thing since the beginning. No Bible version has been gone over with a fine tooth comb and checked for accuracy than the King James Bible. Those who maintain the purity of the KJB are the Cambridge printers, and I have also posted a couple of printing houses here in the USA that are very meticulous about weeding out the printing errors and maintaining a pure text.

Go to any bookstore and buy or order a Cambridge printing of the King James Bible. You won't find printing dates on most of them because they don't use them. You won't find copyright dates, because the KJB has never been revised. The specific underlying Hebrew and Greek texts that were used for this masterpiece, have never changed. This is in sharp contrast to versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, etc.

I can't tell you a specific date because there is none. But any Cambridge King James Bible you can get in any bookstore today is the real deal.

Don't make this more difficult than it is. It is really quite simple.

I hope your expressed desire for an inerrant Bible is sincere. May God grant you the faith and understanding to believe it.

God bless.

Thanks for answering. After I wrote this post, I checked to see what Bible it was I had and it said that it was the Cambridge 1885. It was given to me by a friend a long time ago and was his study Bible and it does look sort of old, the way KJV Bibles should look like, if you see what I mean, so it looks like it is authentic. Is that the right one I have got there? From what you say it sounds like it but on the other hand you said that it most likely doesn't have a date on it whereas mine does. I feel in a bit of a quandary because if a Bible has no date on it, how can I be sure that it is the one you are thinking of? Couldn't you just send me a link or something like that? (See my edited original post.) Oh, and the Bible I have does say that it is authorized, which further leads me to think it must the 100% inerrant one.

EDIT: OK, now you've got me really confused. Because I just looked up on the internet about what Bible was in all the bookshops and it said that it was the Oxford Bible of 1769 that was in all the bookstores and that there wasn't actually a Cambridge Bible of that date but that the Cambridge Bibles afterwards just followed what was in the Oxford 1769 one (barring a few changes in spelling and stuff like that). Does that mean that my one, which says Cambridge 1885, is better than the ones I can get in a bookstore? Do you think it might be valuable?
Although I can see why Cambridge wouldn't want to put a date in their Bibles if they were really just plagiarising from the Oxford Bible. Well, not just plagiarising but taking the whole thing lock, stock and print drum. I'd be interested to know what you think about that. Could it be that if they put a date to it, people would know that they were just stealing it from Oxford? It seems a funny thing to steal a Bible!

EDIT: As you aren't there, I thought I'd just talk to myself a bit because I am beginning to feel really wonderful at the thought of getting the 100% inerrant version of the Bible. And I feel quite privileged because no one before 1769 (or whenever - I'm sure you know more exactly?) had this 100% version. It was the first time in all of history that a fully complete inerrant Bible was available! We are so privileged because most Christians down the ages didn't have what we now have. And to think God chose our own language - English - to produce it in! Even though there were vastly more people who spoke Chinese or whatever. (And even today there are more native Chinese speakers than there are native English speakers.) Do you think God sees us in a special way?

Anyway, sorry for extending this post, but I hope you can answer everything in good time.

 

[chrysostom]

Who authorized Cambridge to maintain the purity of the KJB? When did Cambridge finally know it had a pure version to maintain? How did Cambridge know it was pure?

good questions

 

[brandplucked]

AGAIN, THERE ARE MANY RARE NAMES OF CERTAIN BIRDS, BEASTS, AND PRECIOUS STONES, &c., CONCERNING WHICH THE HEBREWS THEMSELVES ARE SO DIVIDED AMONG THEMSELVES FOR JUDGEMENT.... NOW IN SUCH A CASE, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident, so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than

The margin note at 2 Chronicles 9:6 points out that the Hebrew had a phrase that was not included in the translation.

This shows that margin notes were never limited to rare animals and precious stones.

If this and many other examples from the margins are used to admonish the reader to seek further in the Hebrew and in the Greek and not dogmatize the English translation preemptorily, then why do KJV Only advocates keep complaining whenever any reader seeks further?
Is it the intention of KJV Only advocates to dogmatize the words?
(From your actions, I can only conclude that it is your intention.)

go. I quoted the CONTEXT of what the KJB translators themselves said. By the way, there is no marginal note at 2 Chron. 9:6.

 

[brandplucked]

The Bible Agnostic prefers his Vatican Versions

The Bible Agnostic prefers his Vatican Versions

I use a 1769 KJV English translation of the Holy Bible every day, but I know it isn't the most accurate word for word English translation of the Holy Bible. I use it the most because it's what I grew up with and am the most comfortable with. I use other translations in parallel when I study difficult portions of Scripture (i.e. ESV, NASB).

The KJV only folks lost the debate. It wasn't even close. The translators of the KJV even disagree with the KJV only folks. The KJV is JUST a good English translation of the Holy Bible, and we should all know that the Holy Bible wasn't written in English. Many of the arguments of the KJV only folks are just plain SILLY, and they manage to bash some other English translations of the Holy Bible that are more accurate word for word than the KJV.

I greatly dislike bashing any good translation of the Holy Bible, including the KJV. I enjoyed the debate and appreciate the work of those who participated. The readers got the truth about the KJV and the KJV only movement. Bashing good English translations of the Holy Bible is not God's Work.

Hi Journey. And so you remain the bible agnostic who does NOT believe that any Bible in history ever was the complete and inerrant words of God that you were before the debate, and you prefer your new Vatican versions like the ESV, NASB.

I'm like, totally shocked:shocked:

 

[brandplucked]

Bible agnostics are long on questions and short on answers

Bible agnostics are long on questions and short on answers

Who authorized Cambridge to maintain the purity of the KJB? When did Cambridge finally know it had a pure version to maintain? How did Cambridge know it was pure?

Tico. I'm just telling you what the complete and inerrant words of God Bible is and where you can get one. You don't have to believe me.

You don't believe that ANY Bible, translated or untranslated, is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God and it appears you prefer to remain in that condition. Go for it. See where it gets you.

 

[brandplucked]

marginal note at 2 Chronicles 9:6?

marginal note at 2 Chronicles 9:6?

OK, go. I give. What is the marginal note at 2 Chron. 9:6?

 

[Bob Enyart]

The margin note at 2 Chronicles 9:6 points out that the Hebrew had a phrase that was not included in the translation. This shows that margin notes were never limited to rare animals and precious stones. If this and many other examples from the margins are used to admonish the reader to seek further in the Hebrew and in the Greek and not dogmatize the English translation preemptorily, then why do KJV Only advocates keep complaining whenever any reader seeks further? ...

Hello GO! That's 2 Chronicles 8:6...

The phrase in the Hebrew that is not translated is the equivalent of "which he desired". God created human language, and just as there is no such thing as a square circle, God shows Himself completely aware that there is no such thing as an exact translation of any lengthy text into another language.

So as you are pointing out, the 1611 translators are giving the reader the courtesy of having more information so that they can make their own minds up about the nuances in the difference between the Hebrew and their translation.

- Bob

 

[Brother Vinny]

Challenge:

Take a few months. Read through the KJB a few times with the attitude that I'm going to believe every single word no matter what.

You will be amazed with what God will show you, if you are saved.

I will take this up.

 

[heir]

Here is what I know for sure, God doesn't need a perfect printed version of His Word in every tongue to reach the world with the Gospel to get people saved, before or after the KJB. In the scope of the history of man there is only a very small percent of the human race that will ever see that supposed perfect printed word before or after the KJB. So, what good is a perfect printed translation if most of humanity will never hold it in their hands?

What good is the word of God if we can't believe it?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Challenge:

Take a few months. Read through the KJB a few times with the attitude that I'm going to believe every single word no matter what.

You will be amazed with what God will show you, if you are saved.

I have done this with my NIV and am amazed at what God has shown me. You see, it's not the version that you use, it is how open your heart is to God when reading it.

 

[journey]

Hi Journey. And so you remain the bible agnostic who does NOT believe that any Bible in history ever was the complete and inerrant words of God that you were before the debate, and you prefer your new Vatican versions like the ESV, NASB.

I'm like, totally shocked:shocked:

You have a problem telling the truth and prefer to twist things for your benefit. You tried to do the same thing in the debate that you just lost. The words you tried to put in my mouth were not mine. I have no further use for you.

 

[mamatuzzo]

What good is the word of God if we can't believe it?

We believe it as we search it out. That is why we study to show our selves approved. We use the resources we have available. That is what the rest of the World has to do that has never seen a supposedly perfect KJB. They still have to believe what they have.

 

[Desert Reign]

Hi Will Kinney,
I am still trying to find somewhere to buy a 100% inerrant Bible. Without a date on it or a version number it is hard to be sure. I was horrified to learn that even Cambridge Bibles aren't the same as they were just a few years ago. Have a look at this: I checked my 1885 Bible and it doesn't have any of the changes listed in this article so it could be the authentic one, could it? Maybe you should check your own Bible and see if it passes the test?

Having said that, my Bible doesn't have the bit at the beginning with the pretty picture and the notes from the translators. It just starts with Genesis 1.

I know a lot of people keep talking about the Cambridge 1769 version as the final 100% inerrant version but when I looked this up on Wikipedia it said:

By the mid-18th century the wide variation in the various modernized printed texts of the Authorized Version, combined with the notorious accumulation of misprints, had reached the proportion of a scandal, and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge both sought to produce an updated standard text. First of the two was the Cambridge edition of 1760, the culmination of twenty-years work by Francis Sawyer Parris,[92] who died in May of that year. This 1760 edition was reprinted without change in 1762 [93] and in John Baskerville's fine folio edition of 1763.[94] This was effectively superseded by the 1769 Oxford edition, edited by Benjamin Blayney,[95] though with comparatively few changes from Parris's edition; but which became the Oxford standard text, and is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.

I've bolded the relevant parts. So it seems that the Cambridge 1769 version is really the Cambridge 1760 version with a few changes and called the Oxford 1769 edition. Confusing, I know, but you are the expert so I presume you know which is which.

There is one thing that bothers me a lot and that is the words 'almost unchanged' in the bolded part above. Can you tell me if Cambridge are in the habit of making small changes here and there in their undated KJV texts? I mean surely, that would mean it was no longer 100% inerrant, wouldn't it?

I am hoping you can sort this out for me because I would be bitterly disappointed if it turned out that Cambridge are changing the text of the Bible without telling anyone.

In a similar vein, the Wiki article says

By the mid-19th century, almost all printings of the Authorized Version were derived from the 1769 Oxford text

This is comforting in a way because it means there is a gold standard readily available. But it all goes sour when they say 'derived from'. And I am sure you know that you only need a tiny amount of sour milk to make the whole urn sour.

It then says:

By the early twentieth century, editing had been completed in Cambridge's text, with at least 6 new changes since 1769, and the reversing of at least 30 of the standard Oxford readings.

I must admit, this makes me feel even more special as it seems that it was only in the 20th century that anyone had a 100% inerrant Bible. Although, a thought occurs to me that perhaps all these different versions were inerrant and that whatever CUP produce, it is automatically guaranteed to be 100% inerrant simply because CUP are God's divine instrument for inerrancy. So even though the versions might change, they are still inerrant. In other words inerrant just means whatever CUP Bible is current? Would you have an opinion on this idea? I know it sounds a bit zany, but how else am I to make sense of it? Look at this for example:

Cambridge University Press introduced a change at 1 John 5:8 in 1985, reversing its longstanding tradition of printing the word "spirit" in lower case by using a capital letter "S".[116] A Rev. Hardin of Bedford, Pennsylvania, wrote a letter to Cambridge inquiring about this verse, and subsequently received a reply from Dr. Cooper on June 3, 1985, admitting that it was a "matter of some embarrassment regarding the lower case 's' in Spirit".

This would mean that if I went out and bought a Cambridge Bible, it would not be the same as your one. Please, Will, can you give me a detailed and clear answer to these concerns and my last post. I am relying on you as the expert to clear it all up.

 

[genuineoriginal]

go. I quoted the CONTEXT of what the KJB translators themselves said.

You quote a lot of things, but I have seen no indication that you understand what you quote.

there is no marginal note at 2 Chron. 9:6.

Sorry about that, the misprinted chapter number from the Cambridge KJV Bible threw me off.
The marginal note is at 2 Chronicles 8:6

I am referencing the Cambridge KJV Bible on this webpage:
Concord Wide-Margin Reference Edition

If you click on the Text Sample, it will download an image of page 484, which clearly shows a marginal note at 2 Chronicles 8:6 that gives the translation from the Hebrew.

 

[heir]

We believe it as we search it out.

Funny, I pick up my Bible with the attitude that it is God's word and believe it is so before I even read a word of it.

That is why we study to show our selves approved.

From the book you hold in your hand, what does 2 Timothy 2:15 say? Studying to shew thyself approved unto God is by rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV). Do you even know what that is and how to do it?

We use the resources we have available. That is what the rest of the World has to do that has never seen a supposedly perfect KJB. They still have to believe what they have.

The "resources we have available" IS "all scripture" (2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV). God will sort out the "rest of the world" just as He did concerning reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV).

 

[mamatuzzo]

You don't need a KJB to figure out we are not the Church of Prophesy, but in fact the Mystery Church revealed to Paul. We get the Gospel of our Salvation from Paul. Sorry, I don't get your point.

 

[mamatuzzo]

Funny, I pick up my Bible with the attitude that it is God's word and believe it is so before I even read a word of it.

From the book you hold in your hand, what does 2 Timothy 2:15 say? Studying to shew thyself approved unto God is by rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV). Do you even know what that is and how to do it?

The "resources we have available" IS "all scripture" (2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV). God will sort out the "rest of the world" just as He did concerning reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV).

You don't need a KJB to figure out we are not the Church of Prophesy, but in fact the Mystery Church revealed to Paul. We get the Gospel of our Salvation from Paul. Sorry, I don't get your point.