THE KING JAMES VERSION OF 1611: THE MYTH OF EARLY REVISIONS

But I think he's trying to get a handle on exactly where in the continuum of KJV-only-ism you stand.

I am not a Ruckmanite, but I am not a Textus Receptus person either.

I believe that the KJV is the authoritative Bible and word of God for today.

I posted to him: Here is Mark 16:9 from the original 1611 KJV and a link where you can check it out. You have changed the punctuation by adding a comma after the word risen and removed the comma after the word week as I said before. Mark 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. His reply was: Once again, I did not add anything. If you notice the spelling of words you'll see that I'm quoting the original 1611 with old English spelling: He continued his argument by saying: You keep quoting the modernized version of the 1611 edition with updated spelling which presumably also altered punctuation. Thank you FullCourt for this very informative post.

The point of the exchange was that you were accusing me of dishonesty. You were stating that "I" was adding to the text of the KJV in Mark 16:9. You were essentially calling me a liar and a cheat. That was not true. The KJV of 1611, like other translations, translates Mark 16:9 one way, while other translatations translate it another way.

Now if you want to make the case that the KJV of 1611 translated Mark 16:9 wrong by "mistake" and later versions of the KJV were accurate, then that still doesn't alter the fact that I didn't lie or add anything to the text. And it still doesn't alter the fact that ALL punctuation in all English versions is uninspired.

The KJV of 1611, like other translations, translates Mark 16:9 one way, while other translations translate it another way.

I remember this exchange very well. You were explaining that the original King James inserted a comma in Mark 16:9 to read like this: [Now when Jesus was risen early, the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.] The Bishops bible and the Geneva bible, found on the same web page, essentially translate Mark 16:9 the same way. Others do not. You even spelled out the "OLDE ENGLISH" in your post.

The whole point of the exchange was to enlighten certain individuals that the original Greek had no punctuation.... and as you said, any punctuation added by any translators would then be "logically uninspired".

To then follow through to the logical conclusion.....you can now say Mark 16:9 does not necessarily show a Sunday morning resurrection. Because of that it now agrees with the other three Gospels!

For someone to call you a liar and say you were attempting to manufacture your own version is patently untrue. You did nothing of the sort. If anyone would like to read the original version in question it can be found here. Mark 16:9.

Regarding the KJV (King James Version)-Only controversy; there is at least one serious doctrinal error in the KJV; in the KJV, in Romans, the text reads "The Spirit Itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." The Holy Spirit is not an "It"! The Holy Spirit is a "He"! This could encourage the Jehovah's Witnesses and Armstrongites, and the followers of Jacob O. Meyer and his "Assemblies of Yahweh", all of whom believe the Holy Spirit is not a Divine Person, but rather an impersonal energy force, a mere "it". This is a SERIOUS ERROR in the KJV. Only the Greek Old Testament LXX and the Greek N.T. Textus Receptus (Byzantine/Majority texts) are inspired of God the Holy Spirit.
Sincerely, Scott Harrington
Erie, PA

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.