Was consensus pre-1611 English Bible perfect, pure, infallible?

[logos1560]

On page 13 of the thread entitled "Inspired Translations"

The Scriptures are properly defined as a reference to the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts – it is perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Scriptures given by inspiration of God are extant today and readily available in every major language of the world.

God's intent was to have His word translated - the translated word has the same authority and power as the original.

The phrase “given by inspiration of God” defines the character of all Scripture and is not limited to the autograph, or the originals, but to all extant Scripture in any generation or language. You can read the extant Scriptures with the confidence that you are reading the very words of God in the form that God wants you to have today!

The Scriptures had been translated into English many years before 1611.

  According to a consistent application of Mitex's own arguments or claims, a consensus pre-1611 English Bible would have to have been given by inspiration of God and would have to have been perfect, pure, and infallible.
There is no other option if Mitex's claims are supposedly correct and consistently applied.  That pre-1611 consensus English Bible would have "same authority and power as the original" according to Mitex.

According to a consistent application of Mitex's own claims and reasoning, on what basis could a group of Church of England critics of the pre-1611 English Bibles make many revisions, changes, supposed improvements, or supposed corrections to the pre-1611 consensus English Bible that had to have been "given by inspiration of God", that had to have been "perfect, pure, and infallible",  that had to have the "same authority and power as the original," and that had to have been "the final authority in all matters of faith and practice" for English-speaking believers before 1611?

Mitex, were English-speaking believers before 1611 reading "the very words of God" in their consensus pre-1611 English Bible?

The actual fact that the pre-1611 consensus English Bible was changed and revised in many places is a serious problem for Mitex's inconsistent claims and faulty reasoning.  Will Mitex deal with a consistent application of his very own reasoning as applied to before 1611?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Here is a little fun from Mitex and BG

Mitex says
Who said:
"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. Ps 19:7?"

BG says
This verse has nothing to do with the accuracy of a translation but rather the intrinsic value of God's law.

Mitex says,
Who said:
"But what mention we three or four uses of the Scripture, whereas whatsoever is to be believed, or practiced, or hoped for, is contained in them? or three or four sentences of the Fathers, since whosoever is worthy the name of a Father, from Christ’s time downward, hath likewise written not only of the riches, but also of the perfection
of the Scripture?"

BG says
Here again this is speaking about the intrinsic character of God's Word and not the quality of some translation.

Mitex says
Who said:
"The Scriptures then being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them?"

BG says
Well there you go again trying to prove a point from something that does not speak to the OP. This quote has nothing to do with the quality of the translation work done on any translation. It is speaking to the intrinsic character of the sum total of all that which is called God's Word or Scripture.

Mitex says,
Who said:
"Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where."

BG says
This quote argues directly against you. "though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where." This quote does speak to the work of translation and to the quality of the translation. It indicates that there is no complete perfection in the work of translators. There is always something that could be rendered with better grace or fitness.


Mitex says
Our extant Scriptures are indeed perfect (trustworthy, complete, nothing lacking, etc.) yet the setting forth of it there may be some imperfections and blemishes - ink spots, spelling, archaic words, words not set forth with so fitly for phrase or so expressly for sense, every where, etc.

BG says
Well you did it again. This quote speaks directly against what you are trying to say. It is so obvious you must not have read it. This part, "Our extant Scriptures are indeed perfect (trustworthy, complete, nothing lacking, etc.)" speaks to the intrinsic perfection that is characteristic of all that God says.

BG says
This section of the quote, "yet the setting forth of it there may be some imperfections and blemishes - ink spots, spelling, archaic words, words not set forth with so fitly for phrase or so expressly for sense, every where, etc.", speaks to the quality of the translation work. It indicates no translation work can be done without making mistakes or omissions. You are a hoot.


Mitex says
As way of example -  We have had many brothers and sisters translate for visiting pastors and speakers. Every translator has translated the words and messages correctly – but not every translation was done “with like grace”. Obviously, some translators had a better command of the Polish and English languages than their counterparts. All the translations were genuine, valid and correct, in a word, trustworthy – not to be disputed against. accuracy

BG says
This one is the best, as you were a part of it. The same two parts of translations are addressed in this one. You say, "All the translations were genuine, valid and correct, in a word, trustworthy – not to be disputed against.".. This speaks to the character of the words of the speakers, not the accuracy of the translation.

BG says
This quote speaks to the quality of the translation not the character of the words of the speakers. "Obviously, some translators had a better command of the Polish and English languages than their counterparts." Yes some of your translators could have done a better job. They could have been more perfect. The translation quality could have been better.

BG says
God's Word can not be perfected as it was and is always perfect. That which is perfect can not be made more perfect. That which can be perfected never was perfect. We are speaking of the intrinsic character of God's Word. It is dishonest to conflate the two aspects as if they were one and the same.

BG says
You have confused and conflated the character of Scripture with the quality of the translations of those same Scriptures. Mitex do you comprehend what  Miles Smithe actually wrote in translators to the reader, or do you impress your own bias upon that which is so clear?

 

[logos1560]

According to Mitex's claims concerning the intrinsic character and definition of English translations of the Scriptures before 1611 as being "given by inspiration of God", would it have been impossible for critics of those pre-1611 English Bibles in 1611 to perfect, improve, or make better what they acknowledged to be the word of God in English?

By his definition of the Scriptures, would Mitex have to claim that the pre-1611 Scriptures in English were perfect, pure, and infallible and therefore could not be perfected or improved in 1611?

According to a consistent application of Mitex's own stated claims, would he in effect tell us that God allowed the English Scriptures that English-speaking believers had in their hands before 1611 to have omissions that needed to be corrected in 1611, to have additions that needed to be removed in 1611, to have imperfections or poor renderings that needed to be improved, or to have errors made by translators that needed to be corrected?

Did God fail English-speaking believers before 1611 and then show partiality to English-speaking believers in 1611 and afterwards?

The critics of the pre-1611 English Bibles who produced the KJV freely edited, reworded, revised, changed the meaning, added words, removed words when compared to any one of the pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops' Bibles].  What entitled the fallible makers of the KJV to make those hundreds and thousands of changes to the consensus pre-1611 Scriptures in English?

 

[logos1560]

  According to a consistent application of Mitex's own arguments or claims, a consensus pre-1611 English Bible would have to have been given by inspiration of God and would have to have been perfect, pure, and infallible.
There is no other option if Mitex's claims are supposedly correct and consistently applied.  That pre-1611 consensus English Bible would have "same authority and power as the original" according to Mitex.

According to a consistent application of Mitex's own claims and reasoning, on what basis could a group of Church of England critics of the pre-1611 English Bibles make many revisions, changes, supposed improvements, or supposed corrections to the pre-1611 consensus English Bible that had to have been "given by inspiration of God", that had to have been "perfect, pure, and infallible",  that had to have the "same authority and power as the original," and that had to have been "the final authority in all matters of faith and practice" for English-speaking believers before 1611?

Mitex, were English-speaking believers before 1611 reading "the very words of God" in their consensus pre-1611 English Bible?

The actual fact that the pre-1611 consensus English Bible was changed and revised in many places is a serious problem for Mitex's inconsistent claims and faulty reasoning.  Will Mitex deal with a consistent application of his very own reasoning as applied to before 1611?

According to Mitex's claims concerning the intrinsic character and definition of English translations of the Scriptures before 1611 as being "given by inspiration of God", would it have been impossible for critics of those pre-1611 English Bibles in 1611 to perfect, improve, or make better what they acknowledged to be the word of God in English?

Mitex, by your own definition of the Scriptures, would you have to claim that the pre-1611 Scriptures in English were perfect, pure, and infallible and
therefore could not be perfected or improved in 1611?

Mitex, according to a consistent application of your own stated claims, would you in effect tell us that God allowed the English Scriptures that English-speaking believers had in their hands before 1611 to have omissions that needed to be corrected in 1611, to have additions that needed to be removed in 1611, to have imperfections or poor renderings that needed to be improved, or to have errors made by translators that needed to be corrected?

Did God fail English-speaking believers before 1611 and then show partiality to English-speaking believers in 1611 and afterwards?

The critics of the pre-1611 English Bibles who produced the KJV freely edited, reworded, revised, changed the meaning, added words, removed words when compared to any one of the pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops' Bibles].  Mitex, what entitled the fallible makers of the KJV to make those hundreds and thousands of changes to the consensus pre-1611 Scriptures in English?

You have questions waiting to be answered both in this post and others. Gird up your loins like a man and deal with the issue instead of chasing windmills around with Sancho Panza.

Mitex, you have questions waiting to be answered concerning a consistent application of your own claims in this thread and in other threads. 

Mitex, since you evidently do not practice what you assert and answer the proper questions asked you, on what consistent basis do you have to demand anyone answer your questions?

 

[Mitex]

Quote from: Mitex on June 14, 2014, 02:22:51 AM

The Scriptures are properly defined as a reference to the anthology of Canonical books recognized by a consensus of Spirit filled believers as the very word of God in written form true in all its parts – it is perfect, pure, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Scriptures given by inspiration of God are extant today and readily available in every major language of the world.

God's intent was to have His word translated - the translated word has the same authority and power as the original.

The phrase “given by inspiration of God” defines the character of all Scripture and is not limited to the autograph, or the originals, but to all extant Scripture in any generation or language. You can read the extant Scriptures with the confidence that you are reading the very words of God in the form that God wants you to have today!

The Scriptures had been translated into English many years before 1611.

Is that an affirmative statement there, Rick? Are you making a positive declaration of what you really believe? When you used the term Scriptures in the above statement were you equivocating, being deliberately ambiguous or were you genuinely referring to the Scriptural definition of the word Scripture? Did you mean Scriptures as in "given to the prophets and apostles and are 100% perfect, pure, and infallible"? Please tell us Rick, did you mean the Scriptures as in, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God"? Or did you have in mind anything and everything ever written, copied or translated?

In your mind what is the difference between these two sentences?
1. Inspired translations before 1611.
2. The Scriptures translated before 1611.

And these two?
1. The Scriptures in English.
2. The Scriptures in the original languages.

There was a "consensus" English translation before 1611 or were "consensus" English translations before 1611 with a different English Bible being the "consensus" English translation at different periods of time.

There was?

According to a consistent application of Mitex's own arguments or claims, a consensus pre-1611 English Bible would have to have been given by inspiration of God and would have to have been perfect, pure, and infallible.
There is no other option if Mitex's claims are supposedly correct and consistently applied.  That pre-1611 consensus English Bible would have "same authority and power as the original" according to Mitex.

Are you making a positive unequivocal statement that the Scriptures (see above) existed in English prior to 1611 and that those Scriptures were recognized by a consensus of born again Spirit filled Christians as the very word of God? Is that your final answer? You get one phone call, one check with the family, and one request from the audience. Take your time, you have 60 seconds. 

According to a consistent application of Mitex's own claims and reasoning, on what basis could a group of Church of England critics of the pre-1611 English Bibles make many revisions, changes, supposed improvements, or supposed corrections to the pre-1611 consensus English Bible that had to have been "given by inspiration of God", that had to have been "perfect, pure, and infallible",  that had to have the "same authority and power as the original," and that had to have been "the final authority in all matters of faith and practice" for English-speaking believers before 1611?

"That is, Do we condemn the ancient? In no case: but after the endeavours of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God...And to the same effect say we, that we are so far off from condemning any of their labours that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land, or beyond sea, either in King Henry’s time, or King Edward’s, (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation, in his time) or Queen Elizabeth’s of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance...Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where." AV Translators.

You'll have to be more specific, Rick. What Critics were you referring to? The AV translators avowed that they DID NOT CONDEMN the ancient, or any labours of those who went before them.

Mitex, were English-speaking believers before 1611 reading "the very words of God" in their consensus pre-1611 English Bible?

Well, Rick, come out of your closet and tell the world plainly: Did the English speaking believers prior to 1611 have the Scriptures (see above) in English? Are the Scriptures ever NOT the very words of God? Please explain.

The actual fact that the pre-1611 consensus English Bible was changed and revised in many places is a serious problem for Mitex's arbitrary,  inconsistent claims and faulty reasoning.  Will Mitex deal with a consistent application of his very own reasoning as applied to before 1611?

Rick, are you aware that the original has been changed and revised in many places? Does that pose a serious problem for you? You appear to be hung up on jots and tittles and hold the erroneous belief that the preservation of the Scriptures refers to jot and tittle exactness much like grandpa's stamp collection "preserved" in the vaults down at 1st Jerusalem First Bank & Trust for every generation to come and take a peek at. The autographs perished and became the habitat of worms. Scriptural preservation of God's word is more like grandma's pickles, the form has changed over time but the nutritional value is preserved.

The arguments being used that are "slick," wrong, deceiptive [sic], and flawed are the fallacies used by Mitex.  Mitex's claims involving special pleading, begging the question, the fallalcy [sic] of false dilemma, and the fallacy of composition are not correct.

I'm sure you wrote such things out of the Spirit of charity so as to not offend bgwilkinson and gang. Why you would label truth, veracity and sound arguments as such is beyond me, but you go right ahead. 

Evidently, "all" at 2 Timothy 3:16 does not mean "all" according to Mitex's arbitrary, inconsistent claim that suggests or implies that it only includes some [not all] copies of Scripture and some [not all] translations of Scripture that he and his unproven or imaginary so-called "consensus" supposedly select.

More quoting out of context from slick Rick. "All Scripture" tricky Rick, NOT all things ever copied, translated or written as you want to twist. Spin again.

You have questions waiting to be answered both in this post and others. Gird up your loins like a man and deal with the issue instead of chasing windmills around with Sancho Panza.

 

[logos1560]

There was a "consensus" English translation before 1611 or were "consensus" English translations before 1611 with a different English Bible being the "consensus" English translation at different periods of time.

There was?

Even some biased KJV-only authors acknowledge the historical facts that you evidently try to deny.  Robert Sargent and Laurence Vance both confirmed that the Geneva Bible "became the Bible of the people" (English Bible, p. 197; Brief History, p. 19).  Phil Stringer referred to the Geneva as “the people’s Book“ and as “the Bible of the common man” (History, p. 13).  William Bradley wrote:  "The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the people, the Bible of the persecuted Christians and martyrs of the faith, the Bible of choice among English-speaking people for over one hundred years, from its initial printing in 1560, fifty years before the King James Bible, until the 1660‘s" (Purified Seven Times, p. 87).  Bradley also commented:  “The Geneva Bible was the most widespread English Bible for a period of about one hundred years, from the 1560’s to the 1660’s” (To All Generations, p. 64).  James Kahler wrote:  “Much of England would use the Geneva Bible until the middle of the 1600’s” (Charted History of the Bible, p. 16).  David Cloud stated:  "The Geneva quickly became the most popular English Bible and wielded a powerful  influence  for  almost  100  years"  (Rome and the Bible, p. 108).

    Robert Girdlestone asserted that the Geneva Bible “from 1560 to 1640 was practically the authorized version of the English people” (How to Study the English Bible, p. 11).  Leland Ryken maintained that “the Geneva Bible was ‘the King James Bible’ of its day” (Legacy of the KJB).  Ryken observed that “this Bible quickly became the household Bible of English-speaking Protestants” (Word of God in English, p. 49).  Gustavus Paine noted that "the household Bible of the English people was the one which was produced at Geneva" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 9).  Ira Price asserted that “the Geneva Bible immediately sprang into full-grown popularity” (Ancestory of our English Bible, p. 265).  In an introductory article to a 2006 modern-spelling edition of a 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible, Marshall Foster asserted:  “The Geneva Bible was an instant success that captures the hearts of the people with its powerful, uncompromising prose” (p. xxiv).  The Dictionary of National Biography pointed out that the Geneva Bible "was the Bible on which most Englishmen in Elizabethan England were brought up" (Vol. XXI, p. 152).  The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible indicated that the Geneva Bible “enjoyed great popularity among English Protestants for the rest of the century and to the end of the next” (p. 117).  In an introductory essay in a reprint of the 1602 edition of the Geneva New Testament, Gerald Sheppard observed:  "The Geneva Bible became the most popular Bible in England and America and remained so until about 1640" (p. 1).  Ed Hindson acknowledged that the Geneva Bible “was the most popular Bible of its day” (Popular Encyclopedia of Church History, p. 156). Gerald Bray confirmed that "the Geneva Bible became and remained the popular text, read  and  studied  by  all classes of the population"  (Documents of the English Reformation, p. 355).  Marshall Foster maintained that “for generations after its first printing, the Geneva Bible remained the Bible of personal study in England, Scotland, and then in America” (p. xxiv).  James Stobaugh wrote:  “The Geneva Bible became English-speaking Christians’ Bible of choice for over 100 years” (Studies in World History, Vol. 2, p. 119).  Concerning the Geneva Bible, Boyd Winchester wrote:  “Its advantages were so many and so great that it at once secured and--even after the appearance of King James’s Bible--continued to retain a firm hold upon the bulk of the English nation” (The Swiss Republic, p. 275). 

    John Brown wrote:  “For nearly a hundred years the Genevan Bible was the favourite version of the common people” (History, p. 81).  J. Patterson Smyth maintained that “The Genevan was the favorite of the people in general” (How We Got Our Bible, p. 123).  Samuel Newth noted that the Geneva Bible “was the form of the Bible most largely circulated in this country [Great Britain]“ “for nearly a century onward” (Lectures, p. 26). Christopher Anderson maintained that “the readers of the Geneva Bible, as a body, cannot be distinguished by any opprobrious party epithet of the day, for that version was to be found in all the families of England where the Scriptures were read at all” (Annals, II, p. 355).  Blackford Condit asserted that the Geneva Bible “very soon became the Bible of the household, and for more than a century and a half it maintained its place as the Bible of the people” (History, p. 245).  Condit also observed:  “So universally was this Bible accepted, that it was read from the pulpit, quoted in sermons, cited by authors, and adopted in the family” (p. 250).  Neil Lightfoot maintained that the Geneva Bible “continued its popular acceptance even after the appearance of the King James Version” (How We Got Our Bible, p. 181).  Samuel Fisk acknowledged that “the influence of the Geneva Bible continued for a considerable time even after publication of the King James Version in 1611” (Calvinistic Paths, p. 74).  Andrew Edgar noted that “long after 1611 the Geneva version continued to be the household Bible of a large portion of the English people” (Bibles of England, p. 326).  Norman Landis wrote:  “The Geneva in fact, remained more popular than the King James Version until decades after its original release in 1611” (Do You Know Your Bible, p. 34).  After referring to the publication of the 1611, Richard Lovett asserted that “for twenty-five years the Geneva Bible continued in use in many churches” (Printed English Bible, p. 150). Harold Bloom claimed:  “The Geneva Bible prevailed for a hundred years, blocking out the KJB for its first fifty years or so” (Shadow of a Great Rock, p. 19).  Charles Boyce observed that "the Geneva Bible was so powerful a literary text that the Bishops' Bible actually relied on it to some extent, as, later did the creators of the King James Version" (Shakespeare A to Z, p. 63).

    In his introduction to his modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's, David Daniell pointed out:  "This, the Geneva Bible, was made for readers at all levels, and it was for nearly a century the Bible of the English people, used by all wings of the English church" (p. xi).  MacCulloch indicated that a half a million copies of the Geneva Bible were printed and that the surviving copies indicate that they “have usually been read to bits” (Reformation, p. 569).  Dale S. Kuehne maintained that the Geneva Bible “continued to be the Bible of Calvinists in both England and America into the 1700’s” (Kries, Piety and Humanity, p. 214).  L. C. Vass noted that “like a Scotchman, he [George Durant] brought his Geneva Bible with him” to North Carolina in 1662 (History of the Presbyterian Church in New Bern, p. 11).  David Norton cited where Thomas Ward in 1688 indicated that Bibles printed in 1562, 1577, and 1579 [editions of the Geneva Bible] were still “in many men’s hands” (History, p. 39).  In a footnote, Norton pointed out that “sixteenth-century Geneva Bibles with eighteenth-century inscriptions are quite common” (p. 39, footnote 3).  He gave the example of one Geneva Bible in a New Zealand library that “contains signatures, comments and records that date from 1696 to 1877.”  Alec Gilmore observed that there is some evidence that a 1610 edition of the Geneva Bible “was still being used in Aberdeenshire as late as 1674” (Dictionary, p. 84).  John Brown noted that “as late as the close of the 18th century a Genevan Bible was still in use in the church of Crail in Fifeshire” (History, p. 84). 

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

There were actually two different Geneva Bible editions starting in 1576.  They had a number of translational differences and one had some awkward grammar.

Steven

 

[logos1560]

Were all the places where Laurence Tomson revised the 1560 Geneva Bible's New Testament by his Englishing [translating] from Beza's Latin New Testament in his 1576 New Testament improvements?

John 1:1a
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [1560 Geneva Bible]
In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God [1576 Tomson]

John 1:5
And the light shineth in the darkness, & the darkness comprehended it not [1560 Geneva Bible]
And that light shineth in the wilderness, and the darkness comrehendeth it not [1576 Tomson]

John 1:12a
But as many as received him, to them he gave power to be the sons of God [1560 Geneva Bible]
But as many as received him, to them he gave prerogative to be the sons of God [1576 Tomson]

John 1:14a
And the Word was made flesh [1560 Geneva Bible]
And that Word was made flesh [1576 Tomson]

John 1:15c
He that cometh after me, is preferred before me: for he was before me [1560 Geneva Bible]
He that cometh after me, was before me, for he was better than I [1576 Tomson]

John 1:18b
the only begotten Son [1560 Geneva]
that only begotten Son [1576 Tomson]

John 1:20c
I am not the Christ [1560 Geneva]
I am not that Christ [1576 Tomson]

John 1:25b
if thou be not the Christ [1560 Geneva]
if thou be not that Christ [1576 Tomson]

John 1:29b
Behold the lamb of God [1560 Geneva]
Behold that Lamb of God [1576 Tomson]

John 1:30c
for he was before me [1560 Geneva]
for he was better than I [1576 Tomson]

John 1:32b
I saw the Spirit come down [1560 Geneva]
I beheld that Spirit come down [1576 Tomson]

John 1:34b
this is the Son of God [1560 Geneva]
this is that Son of God [1576 Tomson]

John 1:36b
Behold the lamb of God [1560 Geneva]
Behold that Lamb of God [1576 Tomson]

John 1:41b
We have found the Messias [1560 Geneva]
We have found that Messias [1576 Tomson]

John 1:45c
Jesus of Nazaret the son of Joseph [1560 Geneva]
Jesus that Son of Joseph, that was of Nazareth [1576 Tomson]

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Omitting the loaded question part.

Were all the places where Laurence Tomson revised the 1560 Geneva Bible's New Testament ... in his 1576 New Testament improvements?

Of course not. The "awkward grammar" mentioned above applies to Tomson. He had the superior text, and some inferior English.

Steven

 

[Vince Massi]

I think it was Amazon, but they reprinted the original 1611 KJV, but they had to explain that it is a consensus version. The original 1611 KJV has disappeared.

The very first KJV was printed on heavy loose-leaf paper. Different printers printed different parts, and some printer's errors appeared. The first edition incorrectly refers to Ruth as "he." The second edition, also printed in 1611, corrected the error in Ruth. However, if you have a page from a 1611 KJV, you cannot tell if it is the first edition or the second edition, because they are identical in everything else.

The British Museum and Scotland's Royal College later assembled two complete 1611 KJVs from various sources. These are the only two 1611 KJVs in existence, they slightly contradict each other, and there is no way to tell which pages are from which edition.

Should you ever buy a 1611 KJV, remember that it is only a consensus version.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I think it was Amazon, but they reprinted the original 1611 KJV, but they had to explain that it is a consensus version. The original 1611 KJV has disappeared.

The very first KJV was printed on heavy loose-leaf paper. Different printers printed different parts, and some printer's errors appeared. The first edition incorrectly refers to Ruth as "he." The second edition, also printed in 1611, corrected the error in Ruth. However, if you have a page from a 1611 KJV, you cannot tell if it is the first edition or the second edition, because they are identical in everything else.

The British Museum and Scotland's Royal College later assembled two complete 1611 KJVs from various sources. These are the only two 1611 KJVs in existence, they slightly contradict each other, and there is no way to tell which pages are from which edition.

Should you ever buy a 1611 KJV, remember that it is only a consensus version.

Where did you get the info that printers other than Robert Barker printed parts of the editio princeps AV1611?

Are you referring to the supplemental material?

Are you asserting that the editio princeps AV1611 in Annenberg Rare Book and Manuscript Library is not  authentic?

Are you asserting that it was assembled in the British Museum and Scotland's Royal College from various sources.

Again what are your sources for your assertions?

Are you asserting that this edition is not an authentic reproduction of the AV1611?

http://greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611.html

I have the soft red leather full sized as well as the 1/3 rd sized edition. It is my understanding that these are exact photographic reproductions. The print is substantially better quality than that of the originals. They also match the edition in the the Annenberg Rare Book and Manuscript Library.

Where are you getting your information?

 

[logos1560]

If KJV-only advocates really believe that the Geneva Bible was the pure Word of God in English in 1560 and believe their own claims concerning the word of God, should they have been unwilling to have one word or even one syllable of it changed?  Do Ruckman and other KJV-only advocates take the English translation “given by inspiration” at 2 Timothy 3:16 in the 1560 Geneva Bible “to be the truth” and to mean that the Geneva Bible was given by inspiration of God [for example, see Ruckman‘s Biblical Scholarship, p. 355]?

Do KJV-only advocates maintain that the Geneva Bible, which was the translation accepted, believed, and used by English-speaking believers before 1611, was “given by inspiration” or  “divinely inspired” by definition of Scripture or the Word of God? 

Should English-speaking believers in 1560 have accepted the Geneva Bible as their final authority? 

Were English-speaking believers in 1560 supposed to accept every word of their English Bible that God had provided them as pure, inspired, and perfect? 

Since the Geneva Bible was sufficient for English-speaking believers for at least fifty years, did it supposedly become insufficient in 1611? 

If the 1560 Geneva Bible did not contain all the words of the LORD without error, did God make an error in permitting it to be made and published in the first place? 

Do KJV-only advocates imply that God revoked inspiration at some point in time before 1611 [such as in 1560] and only reinstated it in 1611?

Since God was the same in 1560 as in 1611, according to what scriptural truths can it be implied that the guiding of the Holy Spirit for the Geneva Bible translators was different than the guiding for the KJV translators? 

Did some of the textual or translation decisions of the Geneva Bible translators slip by God? 

Since God was just as faithful in 1560 as in 1611, would God bless and use the Geneva Bible for around 100 years or even for one year if any of its renderings were unacceptable or incorrect words of man and if it was missing any words of God according to a consistent application of KJV-only assertions? 

According to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning, could God use both the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV when they say and mean conflicting things in some places? 

If the LORD supposedly replaced the Geneva Bible with the KJV, would He in effect be undermining the integrity of the brand that He had established fifty years earlier? 

Did God call English-speaking believers before 1611 to preach an inspired Bible on which they could not put their hands? 

According to the consistent application of some KJV-only reasoning, the KJV-only view in effect permits an exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611 to sit in judgment on the Protestant Reformation Text and the pre-1611 Holy Bible in English [the Geneva Bible] and to alter it and introduce many changes to it. 

The makers of the KJV made both textual and translational changes to the Geneva Bible.  Were any of the changes that the KJV translators made in the Geneva Bible simply for the sake of variety? 

Were any of the changes that the KJV translators made in the Geneva Bible the result of doctrinal bias or the result of an effort to promote or favor Episcopal church government or the divine-right-of-kings view of King James I?  According to a consistent application of some KJV-only reasoning, did those Church of England scholars usurp the authority of the Book of the English-speaking believers in their day [the Geneva Bible] in order to assert their own authority [for example, see p. 34 in Ruckman‘s Biblical Scholarship]?  Ruckman asserted that “our practice will match our profession” (p. 64).

   

 

[prophet]

If KJV-only advocates really believe that the Geneva Bible was the pure Word of God in English in 1560 and believe their own claims concerning the word of God, should they have been unwilling to have one word or even one syllable of it changed?  Do Ruckman and other KJV-only advocates take the English translation “given by inspiration” at 2 Timothy 3:16 in the 1560 Geneva Bible “to be the truth” and to mean that the Geneva Bible was given by inspiration of God [for example, see Ruckman‘s Biblical Scholarship, p. 355]?

Do KJV-only advocates maintain that the Geneva Bible, which was the translation accepted, believed, and used by English-speaking believers before 1611, was “given by inspiration” or  “divinely inspired” by definition of Scripture or the Word of God? 

Should English-speaking believers in 1560 have accepted the Geneva Bible as their final authority? 

Were English-speaking believers in 1560 supposed to accept every word of their English Bible that God had provided them as pure, inspired, and perfect? 

Since the Geneva Bible was sufficient for English-speaking believers for at least fifty years, did it supposedly become insufficient in 1611? 

If the 1560 Geneva Bible did not contain all the words of the LORD without error, did God make an error in permitting it to be made and published in the first place? 

Do KJV-only advocates imply that God revoked inspiration at some point in time before 1611 [such as in 1560] and only reinstated it in 1611?

Since God was the same in 1560 as in 1611, according to what scriptural truths can it be implied that the guiding of the Holy Spirit for the Geneva Bible translators was different than the guiding for the KJV translators? 

Did some of the textual or translation decisions of the Geneva Bible translators slip by God? 

Since God was just as faithful in 1560 as in 1611, would God bless and use the Geneva Bible for around 100 years or even for one year if any of its renderings were unacceptable or incorrect words of man and if it was missing any words of God according to a consistent application of KJV-only assertions? 

According to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning, could God use both the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV when they say and mean conflicting things in some places? 

If the LORD supposedly replaced the Geneva Bible with the KJV, would He in effect be undermining the integrity of the brand that He had established fifty years earlier? 

Did God call English-speaking believers before 1611 to preach an inspired Bible on which they could not put their hands? 

According to the consistent application of some KJV-only reasoning, the KJV-only view in effect permits an exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611 to sit in judgment on the Protestant Reformation Text and the pre-1611 Holy Bible in English [the Geneva Bible] and to alter it and introduce many changes to it. 

The makers of the KJV made both textual and translational changes to the Geneva Bible.  Were any of the changes that the KJV translators made in the Geneva Bible simply for the sake of variety? 

Were any of the changes that the KJV translators made in the Geneva Bible the result of doctrinal bias or the result of an effort to promote or favor Episcopal church government or the divine-right-of-kings view of King James I?  According to a consistent application of some KJV-only reasoning, did those Church of England scholars usurp the authority of the Book of the English-speaking believers in their day [the Geneva Bible] in order to assert their own authority [for example, see p. 34 in Ruckman‘s Biblical Scholarship]?  Ruckman asserted that “our practice will match our profession” (p. 64).

 

Do you bore your spouse to death with this incessant nagging?