Monthly Archives: June 2015

General

Spelling “inquire” not “enquire” in the PCE

A response to a question about why the PCE spells “inquire” not “enquire”.

First, the use of “inquire” or “enquire” is nothing to do with British or non-British spelling in the history KJB printing.

In the older Cambridge editions, and the Pure Cambridge Edition, the standardised spelling is “inquire”, and this is not an accident. The spelling “inquire” is the traditional Cambridge spelling.

When the Concord Edition was made by Cambridge, it took some Oxford Edition changes, including changing the spelling to “enquire” (this occurred in the mid 20th century).

Meanwhile Cambridge also obtained the Eyre and Spottiswoode publishers, and so they took the London Edition and created the “Standard Text Edition”.
Continue reading →

General

A response to a modern versionist

A response to a modern versionist:

You now think it is God’s will not to have a perfect version. Which means you are saying that God has deliberately chosen that error would always interfere with our Bibles, that is, that texts would never be 100% correct, and that translations would never be 100% accurate.

This means you are now saying it is God’s will that no Bible is exactly precisely perfect.

Your basis for your view is not any Scripture reference, not any doctrine derived from Scripture, but:

1) That you appeal to “historical support”, i.e. the empirical evidence of there being variations in copies, etc.

2) Next that of all the copies, there is sufficiency, that major doctrines are not absent, and

3) That you assert rationally, as based on your knowledge that humans are fallible and from the information of the previous two points that the KJB is not perfect in translation.
Continue reading →

Editorial

Dubious developers of Modern Textual Criticism

There are essentially four views in regard to how we approach the Biblical text:
1. Tradition (e.g. Vulgate), i.e. what has passed down ecclesiastically
2. Reception (e.g. Textus Receptus), i.e. what has come to us through divine providence
3. Majority (e.g. Majority Text), i.e. what can be discerned empirically to have the most and best attestation
4. Reason (e.g. Modern Critical Text), i.e. what can be discerned rationally from eclectic sources to have the most probable primacy

Pure tradition was rejected in the Reformation, as tradition plus a believing analysis of afforded limited information was thought to be a sufficient basis for arriving at a correct text.

The Majority view and the Reason views put emphasis on what humans know, that is, as more manuscripts were discovered, it could be better known to the human mind what was probably the correct, original reading.

The King James Bible Only view is on the spectrum at 2. The Byzantine tradition is going from 1 to 4, while neo-Byzantine tradition is at number 3.
Continue reading →