Bibleprotector's pure Cambridge is a hoax. Go directly to 1st John 2:23 of his pure Cambridge, and what do you see? Exactly the below, the italics are his, not mine.
Quote:
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the
Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father
also.
|
Now, the 1611 doesn't put brackets around the "but." How'd Bibleprotector's bible correctors in circa 1900 arrive at that contraption? By comparison to the Greek text--but what Greek text?????????????? Stephanus,
SCRIVENER?
Nestle-Aland?????? It can't be Stephanus, because Stephanus leaves out all the bracketed words. Scrivener has all the bracketed words but "but" so it is probably Scrivener's text they were looking at.
Now, I have a couple of modern KJVs that read as follows:
Quote:
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the
Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father
also.
|
Parenthesis rather than brackets. But the 1611 had no parenthesis and no brackets, but the 1611 read as:
Quote:
|
Whosoeuer denieth the Sonne, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne, hath the Father also.
|
Isn't Bibleprotector's claim that no Greek text is worth anything and the 1611 was perfect and how dare anyone look at a Greek text? Yet his revisers bracketed the word "but" that the 1611 didn't bracket and they did so on the basis of some Greek text. Is the argument, Biblecorrector, that the pure Cambridge is more pure than the 1611 because your revisers took some Greek text and bracketed things out, or is your claim that the pure Cambridge is pure because it follows the 1611? If the latter, your claim is proven false. If the former, then you ought to agree that a pure translation of the TR
can be made in modern English (although it hasn't happened yet).
Now, most KJVOs would say that since the 1611 doesn't bracket the word "but" then the word "but" must have existed in the Greek text they used, and would accuse Scrivener of making a mistake in not including the word "but." Of course, Scivener could only include words he found in some printed edition of the Greek text that the KJV translators would have had before them, and we must conclude none of these had "but" or Scrivener would have included it. But some KJVOs (perhaps Will Kenny?) would say that not only did the KJV translators have printed editions like Stephanus and Beza and Erasmus and Colineaus, etc. before them but maybe they had their own manuscripts and one of these contained the word "but." If then Bibleprotector's vaunted revisers bracketed the word "but" because Scrivener left it out in his reconstruction, but in reality the KJV translators included the word "but" unbracketed in 1611 because they possessed a manuscript that had it, then how is the pure Cambridge so pure? It is no different from any other 1769 KJV, such as the one I am looking at right now that has "but" in parenthesis. Another printing I have from Zondervan has brackets just like this "pure Cambridge." But the 1611 has no brackets. How comes this, Biblecorrector? Why did your men put brackets there?
05-02-2008, 02:31 PM
Bibleprotector's pure Cambridge, a hoax
Linear Mode
