| Poster | Thread |
| | Re:Changes? in the King James | | Stever posts part 8 of 8 parts on "The Changes in the King James Bible:
(5) Greed for Money
The majority of modern Bible publishers (not to be confused with Bible Societies) are neither religious organizations nor missionary societies deserving our unqualified trust. Operating in the cold hard world of business, they care not whether their product is a faithful rendering of the true text. Their interest lies along the lines of profit. They are not after the souls of men unto salvation or edification; rather it is their purchasing power which attracts these companies.
Tragically, the same is true concerning most owners of "Christian" book stores who sell not only any translation but paperbacks and commentaries espousing nearly every wind of doctrine. The reason this continues year after year at a more maddening pace takes us back to reason number four itching ears for winds of doctrine. The circle is ever widening and vicious.
xxxxxxxxxx
This ends the series. As you can see, the "changes" have nothing to do with doctrine.
I truly pray that this opens hearts and eyes for all who happen upon this thread.
God bless,
Stever :-) |
|  2006/5/6 15:23 | | leaf
Member
Joined: 2006/2/27
Posts: 12
sheffield, UK
| | Re: | | Hi, I too am a recent convert to the merits of Textus Receptus. One point I'd like to make is that the 'oldest is best' formula is not taken to be conclusive even by 'Alexanderian' scholars. There are various criteria, with a considerable amount of subjectivity involved, used to evaluate a reading. The goal posts seem to move in favour of the Alexanderian text. On the subject of evaluating the KJV against its own text, try Young's Literal translation or I believe Strong also did one (if my memory serves). They are not easy to read but give an insight into the Greek text, even tenses etc.
_________________
nicholas bye
|
| | 2006/5/6 15:38 | Profile |
| | Re: Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary | | Quote:
sermonindex wrote:
If you have an old websters dictionary or KJV word dictionary and the KJV bible then that is suficient, God can clearly show you into all truth, of course there are variances and things that are hard to get across in english from the greek and hebrew. KJV is near to the best and is a great translation, I use it humbly and ask God to allow me to understand His Holy Word. An amplified bible can help you gain some of the naunces in the original beside a kjv version bible.
Sorry for sounding over simplistic. A commentary like Adam Clarke (a methodist) availabe with e-sword will also help with any variances in the KJV.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stever posts:
I would like to add to Greg Gordon's post. The best bet for Dictionaries is The Noah Webster American Dictionary of the English Language,
1828 Edition.
You can use it online, and you can also order a hard copy for $65 (I have one), or a CD Rom version for $25. If you want to buy either one, just enter a word to look up the definition, and when the word comes on the screen, the link to purchasing either the hard copy book or CDROM come up.
http://www.cbtministries.org/resources/webster1828.htm
xxxxxxxx
The reason I say that is because the English language is changing, it is a "living" language. The 1611 King James English had not changed substantially by 1828 when Noah Webster created his masterpiece. Compare his definitions of words, found in the 1828 version of his dictionary compared with today's dictionary:
The Noah Webster American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 Edition
MARRIAGE
The act of uniting a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb. viii.
Now, compare the above, found in the Noah Websters 1828 Version, with the Merriam-Webster online Dictionary of today:
Main Entry: marriage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
FORNICATION
Noah Websters 1828 Version
FORNICA'TION, n. [L. fornicatio.]
1. The incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman.
2. Adultery. Matt. 5.
3. Incest. 1Cor. 5.
4. Idolatry; a forsaking of the true God, and worshipping of idols. 2Chron. 21. Rev. 19.
Merriam-Webster online Dictionary
fornication
One entry found for fornication.
Main Entry: fornication
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: noun
: consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other -- compare ADULTERY
xxxxxxxxxxx
FORNICATE
Noah Websters 1828 Version
FORNI'CATE, n. [L. fornicor, from fornix, a brothel]
To commit lewdness, as an unmarried man or woman, or as a married man with an unmarried woman.
Merriam-Webster online Dictionary
fornicate
One entry found for fornicate.
Main Entry: fornicate
Pronunciation: 'for-n&-"kAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -cated; -cating
Etymology: Late Latin fornicatus, past participle of fornicare to have intercourse with prostitutes, from Latin fornic-, fornix arch, vault, brothel
intransitive senses : to commit fornication
transitive senses : to commit fornication with
- fornicator /-"kA-t&r/ noun
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What I like about the Noah Webster version is the constant reference to Scripture that is found throughout. Also, the English definitions to the words are those of the King James Bible!
God bless,
Stever :-)
P.S. This is from the link above:
The American Dictionary of the English language is based upon God's written word, for Noah Webster used the Bible as the foundation for his definitions.
Hardcover, over 1800 pages.
Biblical Definitions Restored.
Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language was produced during the years when the American home, church and school were established upon a Biblical and patriotic basis.
Webster, descended on his mother's side from Pilgrim Governor, William Bradford of Plymouth Plantation, made important contributions to an American educational system which kept the nation on a Christian Constitutional course for many years.
The famous "blue-backed Speller," his "Grammars," and "Reader," all contained Biblical and patriotic themes and Webster spearheaded the flood of educational volumes emphasizing Christian Constitutional values for more than a century.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the 1828 American Dictionary should contain the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the Bible" and while he cautioned against too extensive use of the Bible in schools as "tending to irreverence," he reiterated,
"In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed. . . . No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. . . ."
Today when the Biblical basis of education is under systematic attack we need to capitalize upon the availability of our first American Dictionarythe only dictionary in the world to "draw water out of the wells of salvation"to utilize God's written word as a key to the meaning of words. Historically, it documents the degree to which the Bible was America's basic text book in all fields.
Today the field of lexicography has been demoralized by those who would make contemporary usage and slang a standard of reference for students in our schools. Pornographic terminology has come to have educational significance in state schools where Dictionary of American Slang has received academic acceptance.
Christian Constitutional Meaning Restored.
Upon Horace Mann rests the blame for removing from the curriculum the study of an American philosophy of government. Opposed to the fundamental conceptions of our American Constitution namely, property, self-government and voluntary union, Horace Mann, the father of progressive education, removed the spirit of Constitutionalism and allowed only the letter to remain.
The Bible, which Noah Webster indicated as the source of republican government was closed to its primary functionnamely to testify of God's redeeming grace for mankind through Jesus Christ. Actually, it was Horace Mann in the 1840s who removed the Bible and its sacred purpose from the schools, not the United States Supreme Court in the 1960s.
Through the European pilgrimages of Horace Mann and his contemporaries, the alien seeds of foreign ideologies and philosophies of education were implanted in American soil. The independence from European maxims of government which Noah Webster had worked so diligently to achieve was subverted during the early years when American education was made the ward of the state.
A Federal Catechism, part of The American Spelling Book, had introduced civics into the curriculum in 1794. It gave a short explanation of the principles of the American Constitutional form of government and defined America as a representative republic. The defects of democracy were discussed and students learned distinctly why a federal representative republic is a better form of government. Shortly after schools became organized under state systems, the substitution of democracy for republic was made.
Today the necessity for restoring the clarity and identity of Constitutional meanings is obvious if we are to make substantial progress in rebuilding the foundations upon which this nation was established. Without a standard of reference for America's history and philosophy of government students can not be expected to make the distinctions and discriminations between similar terms used in history texts today.
Noah Websters 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Now Faithfully Reprinted for Home, Church, and School.
The 1828 facsimile reprint of the first American Dictionary, published by F.A.C.E., documents the quality of Biblical education which raised up American statesmen capable of forming our Constitutional Republic. Roots are traced in 26 languages. Examples come from classical literature and the Bible.
One Christian scholar described it as the greatest reprint of the twentieth century.
It also contains the following:
Noah Webster's dissertation origin, History, and Connection of the Languages of Western Asia and of Europe
Noah Webster's concise Grammar of the English Language
Biography of Noah Webster, Founding Father of American Scholarship and Education by Rosalie Slater, which describes his significant contributions to a wide variety of fields and records his conversion to Christ.
2,000 pages
A forest green vellum hardcover
Embossed gold-stamped Paul Revere eagle.
This dictionary is sure to enlighten and enrich your whole family's understanding of American English and Christian history.
|
| | 2006/5/6 20:58 | |
| | Re: | | Quote:
Smokey wrote:
Adam
In my opinion, there is no one on this site or anywhere, for that matter that can answer your questions honestly. To do so they would have to be at least as close to God as Paul, Peter, John, Etc. to recieve that insight. I have observed that people are more interested in studying, and quoting old obscure "documents" to support their particular stand, than in seeking God's guidence.
If you truly want those kind of answers, a time of fasting and prayer, with a sincere cry from your heart, and God's spirit will reveal what you need to know.
Blessings Greg
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stever's response:
I would suggest the following reference material that can answer the question, without having to find Paul, Peter, & John, etc:
#1
The King James Version of 1611, The Myth of Early Revisions, David F. Reagan, Pastor of Trinity Baptist Temple, Knoxville, TN.
#2
McClure, The Translators Revived
#3
F.H.A. Scrivener's The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), 1884.
#4
Marvin R. Vincent, A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, (New York: MacMillian, 1899)
#5
F.H.A. Scrivener , A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., ed. Edward Miller, 2 Vols., (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894)
#6
Herman C. Hoskier, The John Rylands Bullentin, 19-1922/23, [Hoskier stood with Burgon & Scrivener against the Revised text. He produced the two famous comprehensive works Codex B and its Allies and Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse].
#7
Also, "Which Version is the Bible" by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones
God bless,
Stever :-) |
| | 2006/5/6 22:51 | | Combat_Chuck
Member
Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202
| | Re: | | Thankyou Smokey, Sermonindex, and Leaf for your contributions. They are very much appreciated!
now...
I request that all of Stevers posts in this thread be deleted if that is possible. He blatantly has defied my special request(see first post) and has gone off with nearly 10 full posts in a ROW with his agenda, and frankly I (and I'm sure the majority), are tired of hearing it.
Stever, if you want to post this material, start your own thread. If you want to type out a post or maybe 2 of your own responses, that is cool! But man, this is rediculous.
You are the only person who reads all of this. My suggestion to you is to consider ENGAGING in DISCUSSION with forum members. Rather than writing(or copying and pasting?) a BOOK and expecting us to read it. Why not post some thought provoking comments, point a discussion in the way you want it to go? And then drop in your 2 cents every once in a while?
All of this posting of pages and pages of articles, no matter how true some of it may be, is in VAIN. You are more interested in what you have to say than that of others, and you take yourself too seriously. God does not even need you to defend his precious Word (God does not [i]need[/i] any of us).
If you want to [i]discuss[/i], you are more than welcome to do so; But if you want to [i]broadcast[/i], start a radio ministry and website.
I hold nothing against you as a person Stever, and I appreciate your zeal. I'm sure at times you have the best of intentions in your heart, too. But please, no more hijacking threads.
Adam
_________________
Combat Chuck
|
| | 2006/5/6 23:58 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Stever's response to Adam:
In your first post you specifically asked:
"My question is, where can I find these mistakes that the KJV translators made? So that I can get aquainted with both the Ups and the Downs of the King James Bible."
Eight (8) of my posts responded to you specifically and answered your request in detail. It is impossible to answer such a detailed question accurately, in one or two lines. My other responses were again, specific responses to other posters on this thread.
This is a very difficult, and complex issue that can be hardly dealt with "off the cuff", in one or two lines. You asked for examples, and I provided them.
If you don't like what I have posted, then perhaps the works of Scrivener and others would be of value to you.
Following are works that relate to your question above:
#1
The King James Version of 1611, The Myth of Early Revisions, David F. Reagan, Pastor of Trinity Baptist Temple, Knoxville, TN.
#2
McClure, The Translators Revived
#3
F.H.A. Scrivener's The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), 1884.
#4
Marvin R. Vincent, A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, (New York: MacMillian, 1899)
#5
F.H.A. Scrivener , A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., ed. Edward Miller, 2 Vols., (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894)
#6
Herman C. Hoskier, The John Rylands Bullentin, 19-1922/23, [Hoskier stood with Burgon & Scrivener against the Revised text. He produced the two famous comprehensive works Codex B and its Allies and Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse].
#7
Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text
God bless,
Stever :-)
P.S. I think you will find what I posted an easier read than the above references. :-)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Quote:
Combat_Chuck wrote:
I request that all of Stevers posts in this thread be deleted if that is possible. He blatantly has defied my special request(see first post) and has gone off with nearly 10 full posts in a ROW with his agenda, and frankly I (and I'm sure the majority), are tired of hearing it.
Stever, if you want to post this material, start your own thread. If you want to type out a post or maybe 2 of your own responses, that is cool! But man, this is rediculous.
You are the only person who reads all of this. My suggestion to you is to consider ENGAGING in DISCUSSION with forum members. Rather than writing(or copying and pasting?) a BOOK and expecting us to read it. Why not post some thought provoking comments, point a discussion in the way you want it to go? And then drop in your 2 cents every once in a while?
All of this posting of pages and pages of articles, no matter how true some of it may be, is in VAIN. You are more interested in what you have to say than that of others, and you take yourself too seriously. God does not even need you to defend his precious Word (God does not [i]need[/i] any of us).
If you want to [i]discuss[/i], you are more than welcome to do so; But if you want to [i]broadcast[/i], start a radio ministry and website.
I hold nothing against you as a person Stever, and I appreciate your zeal. I'm sure at times you have the best of intentions in your heart, too. But please, no more hijacking threads.
Adam
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| | 2006/5/7 1:20 | | Combat_Chuck
Member
Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202
| | Re: | | Ok Stever, I regret being so harsh, and I was wrong in that. I'm in sorrow, and I hope you will forgive me. Truth is that I'm a wretch, and when I posted earlier I was angry, and it was certainly not a holy anger...
Thanks for the effort Stever. I appreciate you took the time to post a book in here. I'll try to read it when I get around to it...
Though I do hope that you do try to engage in discussion more often.
God bless you man...
Adam
_________________
Combat Chuck
|
| | 2006/5/7 1:56 | Profile |
| | Re: Mistakes in the KJV? | | Quote:
Combat_Chuck wrote:
Ok Stever, I regret being so harsh, and I was wrong in that. I'm in sorrow, and I hope you will forgive me. Truth is that I'm a wretch, and when I posted earlier I was angry, and it was certainly not a holy anger...
Thanks for the effort Stever. I appreciate you took the time to post a book in here. I'll try to read it when I get around to it...
Though I do hope that you do try to engage in discussion more often.
God bless you man...
Adam
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stever responds:
Hello Adam:
I accept your apology, without reservation. What I posted is only part of one chapter of a book, that answers your question 100%. It had a table, that would not post, so I recreated the table, in a #1 through #20 format, with specific reference to the original King James 1611 word, and the word that replaced it, and in what subsuquent King James Bible publication. That took over one hour to create.
All of the changes are explained in detail for you there. But the point is, not one of the changes has anything to do with Doctrine.
Here is the chart that I converted to text, in order to make this clear for you:
Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener compiled a list of the variations between the 1611 edition and later printings.
#1
1611 Reading: this thing
Todays Reading: this thing also
Corrected date :1638
#2
1611 Reading : shalt have remained
Todays Reading: yew shall have remained
Corrected date :1762
#3
1611 Reading :Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik
Todays Reading :of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik
Corrected date :1762
#4
1611 Reading :requite good
Todays Reading :requite me good
Corrected date :1629
#5
1611 Reading :this book of the Covenant
Todays Reading :the book of this Covenant
Corrected date :1629
#6
1611 Reading :chief rulers
Todays Reading :chief ruler
Corrected date :1629
#7
1611 Reading :And Parbar
Todays Reading :At Parbar
Corrected date :1638
#8
1611 Reading :For this cause
Todays Reading :And for this cause
Corrected date :1638
#9
1611 Reading :For the king had appointed
Todays Reading :For so the king had appointed
Corrected date :1629
#10
1611 Reading :Seek good
Todays Reading :Seek God
Corrected date :1617
#11
1611 Reading :The cormorant
Todays Reading :But the cormorant
Corrected date :1629
#12
1611 Reading :returned
Todays Reading :turned
Corrected date :1769
#13
1611 Reading :a fiery furnace
Todays Reading :a burning fiery furnace
Corrected date :1638
#14
1611 Reading :The crowned
Todays Reading :Thy crowned
Corrected date :1629
#15
1611 Reading :thy right doeth
Todays Reading :thy right hand doeth
Corrected date :1613
#16
1611 Reading :the wayes side
Todays Reading :the way side
Corrected date :1743
#17
1611 Reading :which was a Jew
Todays Reading :which was a Jew
Corrected date :1629
#18
1611 Reading :the city
Todays Reading :the city of the Damascenes
Corrected date :1629
#19
1611 Reading :now and ever
Todays Reading :both now and ever
Corrected date :1638
#20
1611 Reading :which was of our fathers
Todays Reading :which was our fathers
Corrected date :1616
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I apologize for the lenhth of my posts. I have found that everyone has an opinion, especially on the internet, but hardly anyone backs it up with Scripture (if it relates to Doctrine), or Source Material, with references, if it relates to facts about an issue. I try to be thorough and if I have an opinion, I back it up with proof text.
God bless you Brother,
Stever :-)
|
| | 2006/5/7 10:04 | |
| | Re: | | Good job Stever. I'm glad there are some who know what they believe and why they believe it.
The truth is unless someone is truly seeking the truth they will not take the time to learn the truth. Most people today (I'm guilty myself) want a quick answer for everything when the answer, at times, is not that simple. This may be your ministry Stever, to teach people these very important truths about translations. Some may not want to hear it. Others may be looking for answers and your able to help them. Some preach repentance. Some doctrine. Others have music ministrys. God uses us all for different purposes and I see a gift in you for this kind of thing.
Don't get discouraged. There are some of us that read all this and appreciate it. Theres plenty of room for whatever you feel led by God to give us. thank you
J-bird ;-) |
| | 2006/5/7 17:53 | |
| | Re: A good internet site | | Stever posts:
This is a great site that supports the position of the Received Text and the rejection of the Minority Text (Westcott& Hort):
http://www.biblebelievers.net/BibleVersions/kjcforv4.htm
God bless,
Stever :-)
Quote:
J-bird wrote:
Good job Stever. I'm glad there are some who know what they believe and why they believe it.
The truth is unless someone is truly seeking the truth they will not take the time to learn the truth. Most people today (I'm guilty myself) want a quick answer for everything when the answer, at times, is not that simple. This may be your ministry Stever, to teach people these very important truths about translations. Some may not want to hear it. Others may be looking for answers and your able to help them. Some preach repentance. Some doctrine. Others have music ministrys. God uses us all for different purposes and I see a gift in you for this kind of thing.
Don't get discouraged. There are some of us that read all this and appreciate it. Theres plenty of room for whatever you feel led by God to give us. thank you
J-bird ;-)
:-) |
| | 2006/5/8 14:52 | |
|
