Thursday, September 25, 2014

Hoss vs Doug Kutilek "The Best Cure for KJVOism"

Hoss Cartwright vs Doug Kutilek, "The best cure for KJVOism"... Hoss's comments in black, Doug's in red.
The Best Cure for KJVOism: A Real 1611 KJV
It has been widely publicized that the year 2011 is the 400th anniversary of the original
publication of the socalled “Authorized” or “King James Version” of the Bible in English (Because it is).
This translation has historically been the most widely used, at least since it overtook the
previous champion, the Geneva Bible of 1560 (chiefly, at least initially, as a result of the
legal suppression of the printing of the Geneva Bible by the British monarchy, in favor of
the KJV) (Are you it doesn't have anything to do with "
For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."??? --Isaiah 55:10-11) . It should be noted, however, that the great majority of the editions and copies of the KJV printed and read in the past 400 years have been revisions rather than reprints of the original form of the KJV, with literally tens of thousands of revisions in spelling,
punctuation and the use of italics, plus many hundreds in the precise wording of the text,
to say nothing of the switch from “black letter” (“Gothic”) type to Roman (Yes, there were many printers errors in the original 1611 and many of the following editions. And yes, spelling, punctuation, etc. has been changed), the widespread omission of the Apocrypha in the 18th and later centuries (The apocrypha was BETWEEN the testaments, not included in the cannon of scripture. They did not believe it belonged in the Old or New Testaments which was in direct defiance of the Roman Catholic Church.....meanwhile the Greek manuscripts behind the modern versions (Aleph and B) have the apocrypha in the TEXT of the old and new testaments. If these truly are the oldest and best manuscripts, how come Bible correctors do not accept the apocrypha as scripture?), along with the omission of an extended calendar and charts of Biblical genealogies, and most unfortunately, the omission of the extremely important and informative introductory essay, “The Translators to the Readers,” which was in the original edition (Ummmm.....KJB believers believe that the TEXT of the Old and New Testament is inspired--not the maps and essays. That is quite silly of you, Mr. Kutilek.). In short, most KJV users, particularly those who claim to be “King James Version 1611 Only” in their beliefs, have never actually seen or used a real 1611 King James Version in the original form in which it was issued from the press in 1611 (And you have never seen "the original Greek text". Have you ever even seen the original Aleph and B??? You know good and well that you Bible correctors are the only ones who care about originals. Meanwhile I do have a Nelson publishers 1611 reproduction, which has most everything except for the original font and size. I have read it through--more than once).
In the past, there have been from time to time facsimile reprints of the 1611 KJV. In
1833, “The Holy Bible, an exact reprint page for page of the Authorized Version published
in the year 1611” was printed at the University Press, Oxford; it was in Roman type (see
A. S. Herbert, Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 15251961.
London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1968; p. 377). In 1911, the University Press at
Oxford issued two 1611 reprints the first a facsimile (in black letter) in reduced size of the
original 1611 KJV, the other an exact reprint page for page but in Roman type, of the
1611 edition, both with introductory essays by A. W. Pollard (see Herbert, p. 458). I have
owned a copy of the 1911 Roman type reprint for almost 35 years. This 1911 Roman type reprint was reissued in the 1970s (or early 1980s) by Thomas Nelson of Nashville, about the time they issued their New King James Version (and for a time Nelson sold the two volumes together in a slipcase). This reprint omitted the Pollard essay (and perhaps other features I gave my copy to one of my sons a few years ago and cannot check it directly). Later probably in the 1990s, Hendrickson Publishing (the publishing arm of Christian Book Distributors) also reprinted the1911 Roman type edition (in precisely the form Nelson had). These two recent reprints are easy to find via the internet. Besides these, there have been over the years several fullsized facsimile reprints of the 1611 KJV by various publishers; my brother has a copy of one made in the 1950s, for which he paid $350, used, a decade ago. Such fullsized facsimiles are rarely met with and are generally rather pricey (in the hundreds or even many hundreds of dollars) Now, another edition, widely available and quite inexpensive, has appeared, this made by Zondervan and sold at WalMart (and perhaps other retail outlets). The ISBN is: 9780310440291. It is a facsimilean exact reproduction in the original black letter script of the 1611 edition, but in a reduced size, and with one feature of the original omitted the
thirteen books of the Apocrypha (as noted on p. viii of the Introduction to this new
edition). That the 1611 KJV originally did have the Apocrypha can be visually confirmed
in this edition on the page containing Malachi 4, where the “catchword” at the bottom of
the page is “APO“ which points to “APOCRYPHA” which is at the top of the page in the
original (and in my 1911 reprint), after which originally followed the complete text of those
noncanonical books) (They are also in your "oldest and best manuscripts" as PART of the Old and New Testaments). The printed retail price of this Zondervan 2011 facsimile reprint is $7.99, though I have bought several copies at WalMart in Kansas for $4.97 and I have heard it priced about a
dollar higher elsewhere (and I suspect they hope to make a profit on the publication of the
KJV at that price). (Mr. Doug, are you selling books or something?)

 I would strongly urge EVERY PREACHER, EVERY CHRISTIAN READER and EVERY CHURCH AND CHRISTIAN COLLEGE LIBRARY to get a copy AT ONCE. If you have any KJVO friends, buy and give them a copy. There is no quicker cure for KJVOism that the direct and extended study of the 1611 edition, introductory material and all (Why should we read the introductory material? I am more interested in the text of the Holy Bible.). One finds in the actual, original, genuine 1611 KJV (no doubt “preserved in the form God wants us to have”) an introductory essay that states the translators’ perspective on their own and other translations (Yes...yes...yes...we know that already. I don't care about essays, I care about the holy scriptures that we recieve as the word of God, not as the word of men. (2 Tim. 3:15-16, 1 Thes. 2:13) (they, at least, were decidedly NOT “KJVOnly”). If I could do just ONE thing, I would make every KJVO partisan read carefully those 11 highly informative pages. The original translator’s English Bible text has literally thousands of variant marginal renderings (showing that they did not believe their translation as found in the text was infallibly correct), plus variant manuscript readings, showing that they did not believe that the manuscript reading given in their text was necessarily always right. (And what about the writers in the Bible that did not claim inspiration?) One will also find numerous places where words are “omitted,” “added” or altered as compared with all modern editions of the KJV, to say nothing of a considerable number of printer’s errors (are these also part of the “perfect preservation” we hear so much about?) (No, they are part of printers errors. Do you believe a printing press can be inspired?). And one can discover on the title page of the NT those revealing words: “cum privilegio” (Latin: “with privilege”) which demonstrate the undeniable fact that this translation was COPYRIGHTED FROM THE DAY IT WAS FIRST PUBLISHED (Ok, file a lawsuit against KJB believers....if you can.) (contrary to the gross misrepresentation on this point that is part of the accepted KJVO “wisdom”). I am quite sure that the quickest “cure” for the absurdity (Whoooaaa! What was that??? Did I just hear some "bombastic" Ruckman lingo? GASP. Are you a Ruckmanite?)  of KJVOism is the close and careful study of the actual original KJV itself. I would challenge even dare every KJVO partisan to get this facsimile of the original KJV and study it “cover to cover” and margin to margin, spending a year and more in the process, and try to prove me wrong. (I have nothing to prove. A lot of what you said is true, but you came to silly conclusions based on facts.)


No comments:

Post a Comment

Your questions or comments welcome.