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

[bibleprotector]

Well BP do you believe this one is perfect. This is an exact copy just as it was printed. Is it perfect?

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

I believe that its readings and translation is perfect.

Obviously, its typography was not.

I am quit puzzled at your response. Do you not realize that it was produced by state church professionals for use in the Church of England in their liturgical services?

It was done in heavy Gothic type to give it an extra air of authority as the pulpit Bible of the government Church of England.

It was state of the art for printing in 1611.

How can you say it was perfect and in the same sentence say it had typos. Typos are not perfection.

Even if it had errors it is still a valid translation of scripture the same as any other translation that has flaws such as the Rheims NT as Miles Smith said in Translators to the Reader.

Translators to the Reader link:
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=6

Mistakes and errors do not invalidate a translation of scripture.

The King James Bible was made for Christians generally, not merely for Anglican pulpits.

The size, type-font, and all that is of no bearing to the content.

Once again, I repeat that the text (i.e. readings) and the translation were correct, despite the very well known fact that the printer did not have the best reputation, and that typographical errors were made in the presswork.

And the fact is that even if the KJB had typographical errors, it was still a valid Bible, and those typos did not impinge upon the correctness of the translation.

Also, you are miscomprehending The Translators to the Reader, which spoke of Protestant translations, i.e. men of our profession. We don't profess to be Catholic.

So typographical errors do not invalidate a translation of scripture.

On a very separate issue, translation errors (e.g. the Geneva Version) do not invalidate the Scripture, nor that such a thing should be used as the Word of God. After all, even the Latin Vulgate was the Word of God.

You seem to be drawing two wrong conclusions, first, that typographical errors somehow is the same as translation errors, and second, that I am saying that the Roman Catholic versions were not Scripture.

 

[FSSL]

Incorrect, God's Word was perfect when first inspired, i.e. when Moses or Paul wrote it down.

You just denied that the presentation of the originals were perfect.

 

[bibleprotector]

Incorrect, God's Word was perfect when first inspired, i.e. when Moses or Paul wrote it down.

You just denied that the presentation of the originals were perfect.

Are you trolling? Of course the original autographs were perfect. Believing in inerrancy and infallibility of inspiration includes the fact that there were no mistakes in what Paul or Moses first wrote.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Incorrect, God's Word was perfect when first inspired, i.e. when Moses or Paul wrote it down.

You just denied that the presentation of the originals were perfect.

Are you trolling? Of course the original autographs were perfect. Believing in inerrancy and infallibility of inspiration includes the fact that there were no mistakes in what Paul or Moses first wrote.

Perfect in presentation as well? You're the one excluding presentation from your beliefs concerning the preservation of Scripture.

 

[subllibrm]

On a very separate issue, translation errors (e.g. the Geneva Version) do not invalidate the Scripture, nor that such a thing should be used as the Word of God. After all, even the Latin Vulgate was the Word of God.

Then the NIV, ESV, NASB et al are all the Word of God. Thank you for finally admitting this.

 

[bibleprotector]

Incorrect, God's Word was perfect when first inspired, i.e. when Moses or Paul wrote it down.

You just denied that the presentation of the originals were perfect.

Are you trolling? Of course the original autographs were perfect. Believing in inerrancy and infallibility of inspiration includes the fact that there were no mistakes in what Paul or Moses first wrote.

Perfect in presentation as well? You're the one excluding presentation from your beliefs concerning the preservation of Scripture.

What you are saying, or trying to say, doesn't even make sense.

I believe that the Holy Ghost did not make mistakes in the original inspiration.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Incorrect, God's Word was perfect when first inspired, i.e. when Moses or Paul wrote it down.

You just denied that the presentation of the originals were perfect.

Are you trolling? Of course the original autographs were perfect. Believing in inerrancy and infallibility of inspiration includes the fact that there were no mistakes in what Paul or Moses first wrote.

Perfect in presentation as well? You're the one excluding presentation from your beliefs concerning the preservation of Scripture.

What you are saying, or trying to say, doesn't even make sense.

I believe that the Holy Ghost did not make mistakes in the original inspiration.

Do you believe the presentation of the Scriptures became corrupt and had to be purified or not?

 

[bibleprotector]

On a very separate issue, translation errors (e.g. the Geneva Version) do not invalidate the Scripture, nor that such a thing should be used as the Word of God. After all, even the Latin Vulgate was the Word of God.

Then the NIV, ESV, NASB et al are all the Word of God. Thank you for finally admitting this.

What? Are you admitting that the modern versions are Roman Catholic?

Also, by they way, I said that the Vulgate (Clementine, etc.) was used as the Word of God. That's nothing to do with modern versions, including the modern version Vulgates.

How can modern versions be the Word of God, when they are made based on an Infidel ideology. The makers of the LXX or Jerome were not anything like that (for whatever errors they had).

 

[bibleprotector]

Do you believe the presentation of the Scriptures became corrupt and had to be purified or not?

If you mean presentation, as in, copies with blemishes and copyist errors, then of course, everyone knows that happened in time after the NT was first written.

But the Scripture itself becoming corrupt? No. Scripture itself is always true.

There was certainly a scattering, in regards to copies going everywhere, and the copying mistakes that occurred here and there, they were never enough to cause the actual Scripture to be lost. This is because from 1453 there was a gathering process, and in the Reformation period we see that, with TR editions, with Protestant versions and with the leading up to the KJB.

The word "purified" is used by me (as in line with authoritative and traditional usage) not in regards to Scripture itself (which is eternally pure), but in regard to the process of refining the English text and translation, and secondly, and separately, in regards to the internal history of the KJB in order to correct typographical errors etc.

Thus, we have an exact text-form in English that matches the inspired autographs. There was no "reinspiration". The scripture today in English is the same as what Moses or Paul wrote.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=bibleprotector]...Infidel ideology...[/quote]

Drink!

 

[FSSL]

All of the diversions... he cannot answer simply.

Were the originals perfect in both text and presentation?

 

[bibleprotector]

All of the diversions... he cannot answer simply.

Were the originals perfect in both text and presentation?

What do you mean, "cannot answer simply"? I don't know how much clearer I can be. The original autographs were correct. Fully. They were correct in text/readings. And they were correct in presentation/penmanship. There was no errors in the writing of, nor in the content of, the inspired original autographs. God didn't stutter. Moses didn't write something wrong by mistake.

Do you deny inerrancy and infallibility?

 

[FSSL]

What do you mean, "cannot answer simply"? I don't know how much clearer I can be. The original autographs were correct. Fully. They were correct in text/readings. And they were correct in presentation/penmanship. There was no errors in the writing of, nor in the content of, the inspired original autographs.

Why did it take you so long?

 

[bibleprotector]

What do you mean, "cannot answer simply"? I don't know how much clearer I can be. The original autographs were correct. Fully. They were correct in text/readings. And they were correct in presentation/penmanship. There was no errors in the writing of, nor in the content of, the inspired original autographs.

Why did it take you so long?

What are you talking about? You are clearly trying to shift the issue for some reason.

 

[FSSL]

What do you mean, "cannot answer simply"? I don't know how much clearer I can be. The original autographs were correct. Fully. They were correct in text/readings. And they were correct in presentation/penmanship. There was no errors in the writing of, nor in the content of, the inspired original autographs.

Why did it take you so long?

What are you talking about? You are clearly trying to shift the issue for some reason.

I am not the only one who asked and you didn't answer praise_yeshua...

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

 

[subllibrm]

The scripture today in English is the same as what Moses or Paul wrote.

Which also includes the NIV, ESV, NASB et al. Thank you again for acknowledging this.

 

[bibleprotector]

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.

 

[bibleprotector]

The scripture today in English is the same as what Moses or Paul wrote.

Which also includes the NIV, ESV, NASB et al. Thank you again for acknowledging this.

Putting words into somebody's mouth is dishonest.

Since the NIV, ESV and NASB were made on Infidel principles, which results in relatively wide changes in text and translation, they cannot be classed as "Scripture" per se, at best, they contain Scripture with horrendous corruption. They are certainly not the same as what Paul or Moses wrote.

 

[FSSL]

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.

 

[bibleprotector]

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?