Let's Be Honest(Bible based Religion).

[defender_1611]

---

@defender_1611

bro unya ra sa paghinambog ana imong knowledge bro kong matubag na sa entire bible scholar community kong nganong wa m preserve sa Ginoo ang AUTOGRAPHA, kong inspired word of God man kaha nganong wala man gi preserved sa Ginoo? og nganong daghan man mga manuscripts nga naay mga alleged manipulations?

og kanang bible nato karon gi based na sa mga mss nga even ang mga scholars magsumpaki kong relialbe ba or dili, mo ba nay inspired word of God nga daghang manipulation og dili united ang mga scholars w/c mss is more reliable?

matobag na gani na sa entire bible scholar community, anha sa paghinambog ha. dont give me that attitude nga "koyaw kaayo ka ng defender saa bible" ky you are not based sa imong mga tobg diri.

wala ko na gi panghambog akong knowledge bro ga share lang ko sa akong ideas......lisud kaayo mong pangutan.on kamo mga bible critics kay dili jud mo manubag.....

[defender_1611]

naa ra man diy ni so angkon na jud ka nga naay changes.

di ara ang rason bro ay....


Printing Changes

For proper examination, the changes can be divided into three kinds: printing changes, spelling changes, and textual changes. Printing changes will be considered first. The type style used in 1611 by the KJV translators was the Gothic Type Style. The type style you are reading right now and are familiar with is Roman Type. Gothic Type is sometimes called Germanic because it originated in Germany. Remember, that is where printing was invented. The Gothic letters were formed to resemble the hand-drawn manuscript lettering of the Middle Ages. At first, it was the only style in use. The Roman Type Style was invented fairly early, but many years passed before it became the predominate style in most European countries. Gothic continued to be used in Germany until recent years. In 1611 in England, Roman Type was already very popular and would soon supersede the Gothic. However, the original printers chose the Gothic Style for the KJV because it was considered to be more beautiful and eloquent than the Roman. But the change to Roman Type was not long in coming. In 1612, the first King James Version using Roman Type was printed. Within a few years, all the bibles printed used the Roman Type Style.

Please realize that a change in type style no more alters the text of the Bible than a change in format or type size does. However, the modem reader who has not become familiar with Gothic can find it very difficult to understand. Besides some general change in form, several specific letter changes need to be observed. For instance, the Gothic s looks like the Roman s when used as a capital letter or at the end of a word. But when it is used as a lower case s at the beginning or in the middle of a word, the letter looks like our f. Therefore, also becomes alfo and set becomes fet. Another variation is found in the German v and u. The Gothic v looks like a Roman u while the Gothic u looks like the Roman v. This explains why our w is called a double-u and not a double-v. Sound confusing? It is until you get used to it. In the 1611 edition, love is loue, us is vs, and ever is euer. But remember, these are not even spelling changes. They are simply type style changes. In another instance, the Gothic j looks like our i. So Jesus becomes Iefus (notice the middle s changed to f) and joy becomes ioy. Even the Gothic d with the stem leaning back over the circle in a shape resembling that of the Greek Delta. These changes account for a large percentage of the "thousands" of changes in the KJV, yet they do no harm whatsoever to the text. They are nothing more than a smokescreen set up by the attackers of our English Bible.

Spelling Changes

Another kind of change found in the history of the Authorized Version are changes of orthography or spelling. Most histories date the beginning of Modern English around the year 1500. Therefore, by 1611 the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of present-day English had long been established. However, the spelling did not stabilize at the same time. In the 1600's spelling was according to whim. There was no such thing as correct spelling. No standards had been established. An author often spelled the same word several different ways, often in the same book and sometimes on the same page. And these were the educated people. Some of you reading this today would have found the 1600's a spelling paradise. Not until the eighteenth century did the spelling begin to take a stable form. Therefore, in the last half of the eighteenth century, the spelling of the King James Version of 1611 was standardized.

What kind of spelling variations can you expect to find between your present edition and the 1611 printing? Although every spelling difference cannot be categorized, several characteristics are very common. Additional e's were often found at the end of the words such as feare, darke, and beare. Also, double vowels were much more common than they are today. You would find ee, bee, and mooued instead of me, be, and moved. Double consonants were also much more common. What would ranne, euill, and ftarres be according to present-day spelling? See if you can figure them out. The present-day spellings would be ran, evil, and stars. These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the so-called thousands of changes in the King James Bible. None of them alter the text in any way. Therefore they cannot be honestly compared with thousands of true textual changes which are blatantly made in the modern versions.

Textual Changes

Almost all of the alleged changes have been accounted for. We now come to the question of actual textual differences between our present editions and that of 1611. There are some differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision. They are instead the correction of early printing errors. That this is a fact may be seen in three things: (1) the character of the changes, (2) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible, and (3) the time the changes were made. First, let us look at the character of the changes made from the time of the first printing of the Authorized English Bible.

The changes from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes. They are not textual changes made to alter the reading. In the first printing, words were sometimes inverted. Sometimes a plural was written as singular or visa versa. At times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not have the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations. In fact, there is really no comparison between the corrections made in the King James text and those proposed by the scholars of today.

F.H.A. Scrivener, in the appendix of his book, lists the variations between the 1611 edition of the KJV and later printings. A sampling of these corrections is given below. In order to be objective, the samples give the first textual correction on consecutive left hand pages of Scrivener's book. The 1611 reading is given first; then the present reading; and finally, the date the correction was first made.

1 this thing - this thing also (1638)

2 shalt have remained - ye shall have remained (1762)

3 Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik - of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik (1762)

4 requite good - requite me good (1629)

5 this book of the Covenant - the book of this covenant (1629)

6 chief rulers - chief ruler (1629)

7 And Parbar - At Parbar (1638)

8 For this cause - And for this cause (1638)

9 For the king had appointed - for so the king had appointed (1629)

10 Seek good - seek God (1617)

11 The cormorant - But the cormorant (1629)

12 returned - turned (1769)

13 a fiery furnace - a burning fiery furnace (1638)

14 The crowned - Thy crowned (1629)

15 thy right doeth - thy right hand doeth (1613)

16 the wayes side - the way side (1743)

17 which was a Jew - which was a Jewess (1629)

18 the city - the city of the Damascenes (1629)

19 now and ever - both now and ever (1638)

20 which was of our father's - which was our fathers (1616)

Before your eyes are 5% of the textual changes made in the King James Version in 375 years. Even if they were not corrections of previous errors, they would be of no comparison to modem alterations. But they are corrections of printing errors, and therefore no comparison is at all possible. Look at the list for yourself and you will find only one that has serious doctrinal implications. In fact, in an examination of Scrivener's entire appendix, it is the only variation found by this author that could be accused of being doctrinal. I am referring to Psalm 69:32 where the 1611 edition has "seek good" when the Bible should have read "seek God." Yet, even with this error, two points demonstrate that this was indeed a printing error. First, the similarity of the words "good" and "God" in spelling shows how easily a weary type setter could misread the proof and put the wrong word in the text. Second, this error was so obvious that it was caught and corrected in the year 1617, only six years after the original printing and well before the first so-called revision. The myth that there are several major revisions to the 1611 KJV should be getting clearer. But there is more.

Not only does the character of the changes show them to be printing errors, so does their frequency. Fundamentalist scholars refer to the thousands of revisions made to the 1611 as if they were on a par with the recent bible versions. They are not. The overwhelming majority of them are either type style or spelling changes. The few which do remain are clearly corrections of printing errors made because of the tediousness involved in the early printing process. The sample list given above will demonstrate just how careful Scrivener was in listing all the variations. Yet, even with this great care, only approximately 400 variations are named between the 1611 edition and modern copies. Remember that there were 100 variations between the first two Oxford editions which were both printed in 1611. Since there are almost 1200 chapters in the Bible, the average variation per chapter (after 375 years) is one third, i.e., one correction per every three chapters. These are changes such as "chief rulers" to "chief ruler" and "And Parbar" to "At Parbar." But there is yet one more evidence that these variations are simply corrected printing errors: the early date at which they were corrected.

The character and frequency of the textual changes clearly

separate them from modern alterations. But the time the changes were made settles the issue absolutely. The great majority of the 400 corrections were made within a few years of the original printing. Take, for example, our earlier sampling. Of the twenty corrections listed, one was made in 1613, one in 1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in 1762, and one in 1769. That means that 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made within twenty-seven years of the 1611 printing. That is hardly the long drawn out series of revisions the scholars would have you to believe. In another study made by examining every other page of Scrivener's appendix in detail, 72% of the textual corrections were made by 1638. There is no "revision" issue.

The character of the textual changes is that of obvious errors. The frequency of the textual changes is sparse, occurring only once per three chapters. The chronology of the textual changes is early with about three fourths of them occurring within twenty-seven years of the first printing. All of these details establish the fact that there were no true revisions in the sense of updating the language or correcting translation errors. There were only editions which corrected early typographical errors. Our source of authority for the exact wording of the 1611 Authorized Version is not in the existing copies of the first printing. Our source of authority for the exact wording of our English Bible is in the preserving power of Almighty God. Just as God did not leave us the original autographs to fight and squabble over, so He did not see fit to leave us the proof copy of the translation. Our authority is in the hand of God as always. You can praise the Lord for that!

[defender_1611]

kasabot kaayo ko bro, way osa nimo gisulti diha nga wa nako masabti. Pangutana nimo? bro kana imong pangutana imo ng diversion sa issue, ayaw ug baliha palihug. lain ra ba mo basta ma apilkihan mo, dayun ra ba mo og toyok sa topic nya masoko pa jud, balihon dayun ang istorya. mao nay style sa mga fanatical nga mga Apologists nga sama nimo, buhaton tanan basta lang matapakan ang boslot sa inyong doktrina/pagtoo, bahalag toyok toyokon ang issue basta lang matapakan ninyo ang boslot, hasta garbo ninyo pwerteng taasa bisan naglisod na og tobag magpaka haron ingnon jud nga kaya pa tubagon.

so wala diay original bible? nangutanan man gud ka kong sure ba ko kong naa nay bible saona?

bai ayaw pag assume nga ikaw ra naay knowledge sa bible og ikaw ang pinaka koyaw diri sa forum when it comes to issues like bible kay to tell you the truth hambog kaayo ka og dating.

so again stick sa issue ayaw og post og questions nga mo lead to diversion sa topic and again i will say this, wa ka kasabot sa akong gi post.

mao lage ni basta ma refute ang inyong mga point bro kay ingnun dayon ko nimog hambogero.....

[defender_1611]

@defender_1611

bro unya ra sa paghinambog ana imong knowledge bro kong matubag na sa entire bible scholar community kong nganong wa m preserve sa Ginoo ang AUTOGRAPHA, kong inspired word of God man kaha nganong wala man gi preserved sa Ginoo? og nganong daghan man mga manuscripts nga naay mga alleged manipulations?

og kanang bible nato karon gi based na sa mga mss nga even ang mga scholars magsumpaki kong relialbe ba or dili, mo ba nay inspired word of God nga daghang manipulation og dili united ang mga scholars w/c mss is more reliable?

matobag na gani na sa entire bible scholar community, anha sa paghinambog ha. dont give me that attitude nga "koyaw kaayo ka ng defender saa bible" ky you are not based sa imong mga tobg diri.

sigurado ka ani imong statement bro? I think nasayop ka sa imong gi huna huna bro.....Sa pagka tinuod lang bro weak ra kaayo imong mga arguments bro.......daghan pa kaayo kag wala mahibaw.e kung baga kulang pa kaayo sa mga information......ang akong nabantayan nimo kung mangutana ko nimo kung unsa na klase na greek language ang gigamit sa mga translators. Ikaw dili ko nimo tubagon.....ang imo lang basta greek mao nana....dili man intawn na ing.ana dapat naa pod kay proof. Na anad nako anang tawgon ug hambogero bro kay basta once gani ma refute or matumba na ang baroganan.....mao na bisan unsa nalang ang e accused namo na mga bible believer. Pareha ana imong gibuhat or gi sulti na hambogero ko.....wala man tawn ko nang hambog bro ego ra ko nag refute sa imong mga weak arguments. Na even ikaw sa imong kaugalingon dili ka maka proof sa imong own arguments or accusation. Niya mu ingon na nuon ka nako na apikihan ko.....kinsa may na apikihan nato bro? di ba ikaw ra man?

[defender_1611]

kasabot kaayo ko bro, way osa nimo gisulti diha nga wa nako masabti. Pangutana nimo? bro kana imong pangutana imo ng diversion sa issue, ayaw ug baliha palihug. lain ra ba mo basta ma apilkihan mo, dayun ra ba mo og toyok sa topic nya masoko pa jud, balihon dayun ang istorya. mao nay style sa mga fanatical nga mga Apologists nga sama nimo, buhaton tanan basta lang matapakan ang boslot sa inyong doktrina/pagtoo, bahalag toyok toyokon ang issue basta lang matapakan ninyo ang boslot, hasta garbo ninyo pwerteng taasa bisan naglisod na og tobag magpaka haron ingnon jud nga kaya pa tubagon.

so wala diay original bible? nangutanan man gud ka kong sure ba ko kong naa nay bible saona?

bai ayaw pag assume nga ikaw ra naay knowledge sa bible og ikaw ang pinaka koyaw diri sa forum when it comes to issues like bible kay to tell you the truth hambog kaayo ka og dating.

so again stick sa issue ayaw og post og questions nga mo lead to diversion sa topic and again i will say this, wa ka kasabot sa akong gi post.

Ha? ni divert day ko sa topic? which infact na kana ako mga questions nimo base ra man pod sa imong mga arguments bro.....dont get me wrong here.....

[defender_1611]

@mandirigma: kana akoa bro mga basic pa lang gani na questions maglisud nakag tubag how much more kung sa unahan.....e review daw akong post bro kung nasuko ba ko.....

[sevmik]

This was posted in the literature forum so let's approach it as such. If you guys want to argue about divinity or faith and religion, then better request that this be moved to another section.

With that said, TS, your point that the bible may have been misrepresented is quite valid, from the literary point of view. So don't get sucked into debates about apologists or divine intervention about biblical authors because it only goes in circles. Faith is never a valid argument for it is subjective. The discussion would go nowhere.

Tip lang, why don't you guys try to objectify your arguments based on known historical events and incorporate it with the growth of christianity? Believe it or not, religion grew not just from internal teachings but in parallel with how a society was in every given time. Have you guys never had lessons in social science when you were in college? Or are you one of those close-minded bigots intent on proving themselves right because they're afraid that they might be wrong?

[Mandirigma]

ikaw maoy naapilikhan kay bisan usa sa akong mga pangutana kay wala jud kay gitubag......pataka ra man kag hisgot sa usa ka sa butang sama ani "The original Bible is lost, we don't have it and for the most part there are disagreements regarding the authors of these books" usbon nako ang akong pangutana. Bible di ay to ang nawagtang? kompleto na di ay to kay para tawagon to nimong bible? wala kaha ka masayop sa imong mga terminologies?

balihon lagi dayun. ako nay na apikihan, typical jud ka nga Apologist bai. di na lang jud ka mo angkon nga na apikihan ka kay owaw kaayo na sa imong part.

kong pangutan0n bitaw mo kong duna bai bible sa panahon sa 1st century church mo ingon mo naa apan wa pa ma compile. Ang pasabot sa bible diha bro katong mga sinuwat kunohay sa mga disipolo ni Hesus. Wa ko naghisgut sa COMPILED BIBLE, ang autographa akong pasabot, gigamit ko lang ng word nga bible to mean sacred letters dili katong compiled bible.

assuming ra kaayo ka bai, feeling nimo ikaw ray dunay knowledge regarding Bible and Christianity? hahahaha. tugpa pod gamay sa yuta bai.

[Mandirigma]

wala ko na gi panghambog akong knowledge bro ga share lang ko sa akong ideas......lisud kaayo mong pangutan.on kamo mga bible critics kay dili jud mo manubag.....

sus mo deny pa jud, bisan klaro na kaayo sa imong tinubagan. mao ni style ninyo, kosog kaayo mo mo question sa obang pagtoo but kong kamo nay e question tandog dayun inyong garbo.

mao lage ni basta ma refute ang inyong mga point bro kay ingnun dayon ko nimog hambogero.....

wa pa jud nimo ma refute bai. hahahaha. refute? naay mga pangutana didto nga wa pa nimo matubag. unsa nman ka bai, w na kay matobag mao ng mo resort na lng ka og bali bali. sige baliha jud ang istorya, himoa ko ng akoy way refutation og akoy walay natubag. hahaha, desperado nimo oi.

sigurado ka ani imong statement bro? I think nasayop ka sa imong gi huna huna bro.....Sa pagka tinuod lang bro weak ra kaayo imong mga arguments bro.......daghan pa kaayo kag wala mahibaw.e kung baga kulang pa kaayo sa mga information......ang akong nabantayan nimo kung mangutana ko nimo kung unsa na klase na greek language ang gigamit sa mga translators. Ikaw dili ko nimo tubagon.....ang imo lang basta greek mao nana....dili man intawn na ing.ana dapat naa pod kay proof. Na anad nako anang tawgon ug hambogero bro kay basta once gani ma refute or matumba na ang baroganan.....mao na bisan unsa nalang ang e accused namo na mga bible believer. Pareha ana imong gibuhat or gi sulti na hambogero ko.....wala man tawn ko nang hambog bro ego ra ko nag refute sa imong mga weak arguments. Na even ikaw sa imong kaugalingon dili ka maka proof sa imong own arguments or accusation. Niya mu ingon na nuon ka nako na apikihan ko.....kinsa may na apikihan nato bro? di ba ikaw ra man?

weak ba oi, hahahah TRY HARDER pa bai.

kahambogero nimo, e review to akong mga post daghan questions didto nga wa nimo matobag.

mao ni basta apikihan na gani mo resort dayun mo sa hambog, fyi bai conversion year nako is 1988, and I went to bible school/seminary. then duna pod koy self study during katong panahon nag serve ko sa church. mao ng di jud ko nimo matarog.

kanang mga tubag nimo nga mga copy and paste or gikn sa imong libro b kaha, SAYON ra kaayo na sabton. pa quote quote pa ka og mss haron konohay koyaw kaayo ka paminawon hahaha.

[Mandirigma]

di ara ang rason bro ay....


Printing Changes

For proper examination, the changes can be divided into three kinds: printing changes, spelling changes, and textual changes. Printing changes will be considered first. The type style used in 1611 by the KJV translators was the Gothic Type Style. The type style you are reading right now and are familiar with is Roman Type. Gothic Type is sometimes called Germanic because it originated in Germany. Remember, that is where printing was invented. The Gothic letters were formed to resemble the hand-drawn manuscript lettering of the Middle Ages. At first, it was the only style in use. The Roman Type Style was invented fairly early, but many years passed before it became the predominate style in most European countries. Gothic continued to be used in Germany until recent years. In 1611 in England, Roman Type was already very popular and would soon supersede the Gothic. However, the original printers chose the Gothic Style for the KJV because it was considered to be more beautiful and eloquent than the Roman. But the change to Roman Type was not long in coming. In 1612, the first King James Version using Roman Type was printed. Within a few years, all the bibles printed used the Roman Type Style.

Please realize that a change in type style no more alters the text of the Bible than a change in format or type size does. However, the modem reader who has not become familiar with Gothic can find it very difficult to understand. Besides some general change in form, several specific letter changes need to be observed. For instance, the Gothic s looks like the Roman s when used as a capital letter or at the end of a word. But when it is used as a lower case s at the beginning or in the middle of a word, the letter looks like our f. Therefore, also becomes alfo and set becomes fet. Another variation is found in the German v and u. The Gothic v looks like a Roman u while the Gothic u looks like the Roman v. This explains why our w is called a double-u and not a double-v. Sound confusing? It is until you get used to it. In the 1611 edition, love is loue, us is vs, and ever is euer. But remember, these are not even spelling changes. They are simply type style changes. In another instance, the Gothic j looks like our i. So Jesus becomes Iefus (notice the middle s changed to f) and joy becomes ioy. Even the Gothic d with the stem leaning back over the circle in a shape resembling that of the Greek Delta. These changes account for a large percentage of the "thousands" of changes in the KJV, yet they do no harm whatsoever to the text. They are nothing more than a smokescreen set up by the attackers of our English Bible.

Spelling Changes

Another kind of change found in the history of the Authorized Version are changes of orthography or spelling. Most histories date the beginning of Modern English around the year 1500. Therefore, by 1611 the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of present-day English had long been established. However, the spelling did not stabilize at the same time. In the 1600's spelling was according to whim. There was no such thing as correct spelling. No standards had been established. An author often spelled the same word several different ways, often in the same book and sometimes on the same page. And these were the educated people. Some of you reading this today would have found the 1600's a spelling paradise. Not until the eighteenth century did the spelling begin to take a stable form. Therefore, in the last half of the eighteenth century, the spelling of the King James Version of 1611 was standardized.

What kind of spelling variations can you expect to find between your present edition and the 1611 printing? Although every spelling difference cannot be categorized, several characteristics are very common. Additional e's were often found at the end of the words such as feare, darke, and beare. Also, double vowels were much more common than they are today. You would find ee, bee, and mooued instead of me, be, and moved. Double consonants were also much more common. What would ranne, euill, and ftarres be according to present-day spelling? See if you can figure them out. The present-day spellings would be ran, evil, and stars. These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the so-called thousands of changes in the King James Bible. None of them alter the text in any way. Therefore they cannot be honestly compared with thousands of true textual changes which are blatantly made in the modern versions.

Textual Changes

Almost all of the alleged changes have been accounted for. We now come to the question of actual textual differences between our present editions and that of 1611. There are some differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision. They are instead the correction of early printing errors. That this is a fact may be seen in three things: (1) the character of the changes, (2) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible, and (3) the time the changes were made. First, let us look at the character of the changes made from the time of the first printing of the Authorized English Bible.

The changes from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes. They are not textual changes made to alter the reading. In the first printing, words were sometimes inverted. Sometimes a plural was written as singular or visa versa. At times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not have the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations. In fact, there is really no comparison between the corrections made in the King James text and those proposed by the scholars of today.

F.H.A. Scrivener, in the appendix of his book, lists the variations between the 1611 edition of the KJV and later printings. A sampling of these corrections is given below. In order to be objective, the samples give the first textual correction on consecutive left hand pages of Scrivener's book. The 1611 reading is given first; then the present reading; and finally, the date the correction was first made.

1 this thing - this thing also (163

2 shalt have remained - ye shall have remained (1762)

3 Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik - of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik (1762)

4 requite good - requite me good (1629)

5 this book of the Covenant - the book of this covenant (1629)

6 chief rulers - chief ruler (1629)

7 And Parbar - At Parbar (163

8 For this cause - And for this cause (163

9 For the king had appointed - for so the king had appointed (1629)

10 Seek good - seek God (1617)

11 The cormorant - But the cormorant (1629)

12 returned - turned (1769)

13 a fiery furnace - a burning fiery furnace (163

14 The crowned - Thy crowned (1629)

15 thy right doeth - thy right hand doeth (1613)

16 the wayes side - the way side (1743)

17 which was a Jew - which was a Jewess (1629)

18 the city - the city of the Damascenes (1629)

19 now and ever - both now and ever (163

20 which was of our father's - which was our fathers (1616)

Before your eyes are 5% of the textual changes made in the King James Version in 375 years. Even if they were not corrections of previous errors, they would be of no comparison to modem alterations. But they are corrections of printing errors, and therefore no comparison is at all possible. Look at the list for yourself and you will find only one that has serious doctrinal implications. In fact, in an examination of Scrivener's entire appendix, it is the only variation found by this author that could be accused of being doctrinal. I am referring to Psalm 69:32 where the 1611 edition has "seek good" when the Bible should have read "seek God." Yet, even with this error, two points demonstrate that this was indeed a printing error. First, the similarity of the words "good" and "God" in spelling shows how easily a weary type setter could misread the proof and put the wrong word in the text. Second, this error was so obvious that it was caught and corrected in the year 1617, only six years after the original printing and well before the first so-called revision. The myth that there are several major revisions to the 1611 KJV should be getting clearer. But there is more.

Not only does the character of the changes show them to be printing errors, so does their frequency. Fundamentalist scholars refer to the thousands of revisions made to the 1611 as if they were on a par with the recent bible versions. They are not. The overwhelming majority of them are either type style or spelling changes. The few which do remain are clearly corrections of printing errors made because of the tediousness involved in the early printing process. The sample list given above will demonstrate just how careful Scrivener was in listing all the variations. Yet, even with this great care, only approximately 400 variations are named between the 1611 edition and modern copies. Remember that there were 100 variations between the first two Oxford editions which were both printed in 1611. Since there are almost 1200 chapters in the Bible, the average variation per chapter (after 375 years) is one third, i.e., one correction per every three chapters. These are changes such as "chief rulers" to "chief ruler" and "And Parbar" to "At Parbar." But there is yet one more evidence that these variations are simply corrected printing errors: the early date at which they were corrected.

The character and frequency of the textual changes clearly

separate them from modern alterations. But the time the changes were made settles the issue absolutely. The great majority of the 400 corrections were made within a few years of the original printing. Take, for example, our earlier sampling. Of the twenty corrections listed, one was made in 1613, one in 1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in 1762, and one in 1769. That means that 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made within twenty-seven years of the 1611 printing. That is hardly the long drawn out series of revisions the scholars would have you to believe. In another study made by examining every other page of Scrivener's appendix in detail, 72% of the textual corrections were made by 1638. There is no "revision" issue.

The character of the textual changes is that of obvious errors. The frequency of the textual changes is sparse, occurring only once per three chapters. The chronology of the textual changes is early with about three fourths of them occurring within twenty-seven years of the first printing. All of these details establish the fact that there were no true revisions in the sense of updating the language or correcting translation errors. There were only editions which corrected early typographical errors. Our source of authority for the exact wording of the 1611 Authorized Version is not in the existing copies of the first printing. Our source of authority for the exact wording of our English Bible is in the preserving power of Almighty God. Just as God did not leave us the original autographs to fight and squabble over, so He did not see fit to leave us the proof copy of the translation. Our authority is in the hand of God as always. You can praise the Lord for that!

ok so duna lagi mga changes sa bible karon so mao diay nay gitawag nga inspired word of God nga puede ma manipulate sa tao? tubaga na nga question bai, kay sige ka og lihay lihay ana. hehehe.

ang osa k gropo mo ingon nga unreliable ang sources sa kjv then ang obang gropo mo ingon nga reliable, so himo sila og ilang kaugalingon Version ,karon ang question asa man nga version ang inspired? og asa nga manuscript ang inspired? kay kong mo ingon gani ta nga UNRELIABLE pasabot di na inspired word of God kay di masaligan ang content.

Ha? ni divert day ko sa topic? which infact na kana ako mga questions nimo base ra man pod sa imong mga arguments bro.....dont get me wrong here.....

wa ka ni divert, kuang pa jud diay ka og seminar bai. no no no stick sa issue and answer my questions. ato sa e exhaust ang issue, wa pa gani nimo matubag ang issue regarding mga mistranslation sa bible nya ambak naka ngadto sa inspiration, tsk tsk.

@mandirigma: kana akoa bro mga basic pa lang gani na questions maglisud nakag tubag how much more kung sa unahan.....e review daw akong post bro kung nasuko ba ko.....

ka klaro anang nasoko ka. hahaha lisod jud hahahaha. gitubag na ka nako pero di ko mopadayun hangtud di nato ma exhaust ang FIRST nga issue kay ang mahitabo ani mag saksak sinagol atong issue nya malimtan na dayun ang first issue.