Biblical misprints

[Mrs. Rogers]

Whilst researching an article for the Ladies of Landover Newsletter (This is your anus on cocaine: Freud's satanism exposed), I happened upon some Bible trivia that indeed confirms the KJV 1611 as the Perfect Word of God©, seeing as the version we read these days has never suffered meddling feminazis nor wishful thinkers.

Even the Bible did not escape misprints. Thus we have the "Wicked Bible," so called from the fact that the negative was left out of the seventh commandment. This authorized edition of the Bible was published in London in 1631, and it is said that the printer had to pay a fine of two thousand pounds for the omission.

Another biblical misprint dates back to the year 1580, and is found in the Bible of the famous library of Wolfenbuttel, in Hesse. In the passage in Genesis where God tells Eve that Adam shall be her master and shall rule over her, the German translation is "Und er soll dein Herr sein." The word Herr (master) was substituted by Narr, which means fool. Newly discovered evidence seems to show that the error was a conscious machination of the printer's suffragette wife, who refused to be ruled by her husband.

(Link to unholy source (under "A Blunder Truly Unfortunate" (g).)

[Pastor Al E Pistle]

Re: Biblical misprints

Whilst researching an article for the Ladies of Landover Newsletter (This is your anus on cocaine: Freud's satanism exposed), I happened upon some Bible trivia that indeed confirms the KJV 1611 as the Perfect Word of God©, seeing as the version we read these days has never suffered meddling feminazis nor wishful thinkers.


(Link to unholy source (under "A Blunder Truly Unfortunate" (g).)

The misprint doesn't 'go back to the year 1580' as this homer suggests, since it was not dictated by GOD until 1611. I have just assigned you ten warning points for potential heresy. We have warned you before not to post on these GODLY boards when you are drunk, you old coot!

[Mrs. Rogers]

Re: Biblical misprints

The misprint doesn't 'go back to the year 1580' as this homer suggests, since it was not dictated by GOD until 1611. I have just assigned you ten warning points for potential heresy. We have warned you before not to post on these GODLY boards when you are drunk, you old coot!

Pastor, really! Rest assured I am as sober as a judge, although I may have had one or four too many rum balls for afternoon tea - which has played havoc with my eyesight, "1580" reading as "1850".

However, even if a version was printed in 1580 it wouldn't matter one bit, seeing as it was printed in German and not GODLY English ... a test run of sorts; God saw that the krauts couldn't control their women, and was greatly displeased.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Biblical misprints

Pastor, really! Rest assured I am as sober as a judge, although I may have had one or four too many rum balls for afternoon tea - which has played havoc with my eyesight, "1580" reading as "1850".

However, even if a version was printed in 1580 it wouldn't matter one bit, seeing as it was printed in German and not GODLY English ... a test run of sorts; God saw that the krauts couldn't control their women, and was greatly displeased.

Rum balls indeed....

In any event, if anything was left out of the original printing of the Holy KJV1611 Bible, then we can write that off as God's final draft. Nothing gets by Jesus, you see.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Biblical misprints

However, even if a version was printed in 1580 it wouldn't matter one bit, seeing as it was printed in German and not GODLY English ... a test run of sorts; God saw that the krauts couldn't control their women, and was greatly displeased.

Surely any "Bible" written in German is, by definition, a misprint?

[Brother Guy Bayard]

Am I too curious?

Again my curious nature hath lead me into a labyrinth of confusionanisms.
regarding the divine nature of the King James Version of the Bible. If these following statements are true, I have a question or two to pose which hopefully will not make God angry.

• Man is by nature fallible.
• Man translated the bible.
• There were many versions of the bible prior to the King James Version. These prior versions contained errors which needed to be corrected.
• There have been many versions of the bible after the King James Version of the bible, translated by fallible man, to correct errors contained in previous versions.
• of the 47 scholars (although 54 were originally contracted) who translated the Bible at the behest of King James, all were men, and fallible
• the KJV was recorded by men of unknown political leanings at the request of a man, who was basically a politician, translated from previous incorrect versions of the Bible also written by man.

My questions are these.

• Are we placing our faith in Gods Bible, or the men that translated it?
• If the KJV is the only correct bible, does that mean every Christian before its publication is in error, and not in heaven?
• How many places are left in heaven if only Christians who follow the literal translation of the KJV1611 are allowed in?

If all the places in heaven have been taken already, I might as well take up fornication and liquor, seeing as I can't get a seat at Jesus' table...

Help pastors my faith is at stake....
I also found this in my quest for knowledge...why does God allow such abominations to manifest?

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/1057/CWA/family/index.htm
“Feminist” Bible under Translation 7/22/1999

In the beginning, God created man in His image. Since then, man has attempted to recreate God in his image. Such is the inference surrounding the International Bible Society's (IBS) alleged plans to publish a ”feminist“ edition of the Bible.
According to WORLD magazine (6/5/99), IBS is reneging on its May 27, 1997, commitment to abandon all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version (NIV). This is in response to the IBS's and Committee for Bible Translation's (CBT) support of ”gender accurate“ language. CBT is an IBS-financed group responsible for the original translation of the 1984 NIV.
Two years ago, IBS became embroiled in controversy when WORLD (3/29/97) published an article stating that CBT was planning to substitute an ”inclusive language“ NIV version for the 1984 NIV version. WORLD quoted Larry Walker, one of CBT's 15 members, as saying, ”At the present time, almost everyone is for [unisex language]. The language is shifting underneath our feet.“ Walker added that pressure for unisex language came from women who ”felt left out“ by the traditional language. But Wayne Grudem, a professor at Trinity Evangelical University disagreed. He told WORLD (4/19/97), ”These [unisex] revisions are not the words God originally caused to be written, and thus they are not the words of God. They are human words that men have substituted for words of God, and they have no place in the Bible.“
According to WORLD (4/19/97), CBT made the decision to go with ”inclusive language“ in 1992. It cited three pieces of evidence:

• Zondervan's (publishers of the NIV) writers were told to use ”humanity,“ ”people,“ ”human beings“ or ”humankind“ in place of man or mankind.
• Zondervan published an easy-reader, unisex variant of the NIV, the New International Reader's Version (NIrV).
• Vida, a Zondervan subsidiary, published a Spanish version of the NIV which WORLD insists is ”gender-accurate.“

In the face of potential boycotts, IBS issued a statement on May 27, 1997. It acknowledged the plans, but disavowed them and pledged to keep the 1984 NIV text in print with no changes. However, the board recently stated, ”IBS continues to explore its options with respect to additional Bible publishing in the English language.“
These ”options“ are included in the so-called ”feminist“ translation IBS is publishing. The IBS is adamant that no changes will be made in describing God or Jesus in male terminology. Steve Johnson, communications director of the IBS told Religion Today changes in the new translation—which will not be called the NIV—would include changes in gender language. But ”the style and character will remain the same,“ he said. For example, where the NIV says in First Corinthians 11:28, ”A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup,“ a new translation might read, ”A believer ought to examine him or herself.“ Also, verses about Jews plotting to kill Jesus will refer back to the Pharisees, not the entire Jewish population.
Better accuracy is the reason for publication of the new translation, Johnson said. ”Our sole goal is to increase accuracy of translation from the original Greek and Hebrew.“
Dr. Ronald Youngblood is chairman of the CBT, which is researching the new translation wording. He says, ”Language is continually developing, and since new archaeological and other discoveries are constantly being made, responsible translation work never ends. That is why the IBS must be open to the future“ (CNSNews.com, 6/25/99).
On its Web site, the IBS board stated that it encourages CBT to bring ”clarity, accuracy and faithfulness“ to the translation of the Word of God from the original Greek and Hebrew.
But in the interest of ”clarity,“ will the Gospel's truth be compromised? Focus on the Family President Dr. James Dobson warned, ”We must resist even the subtlest forms of language which would serve a particular cultural agenda“ (WORLD, 6/14/97). Regent College professor J. I. Packer cautioned that revisions are ”blurring rather than clarifying the sense of the original“ (WORLD, 4/19/97).
Publication of the new translation will determine whether the IBS and CBT are promoting a feminist agenda. It is imperative that, in the interest of ”clarity,“ the truth of God's Word remains uncompromised.

[Brother V]

Re: Am I too curious?

My questions are these.

• Are we placing our faith in Gods Bible, or the men that translated it?
• If the KJV is the only correct bible, does that mean every Christian before its publication is in error, and not in heaven?
• How many places are left in heaven if only Christians who follow the literal translation of the KJV1611 are allowed in?

Friend,
1. The men who put transcribed the Bible (KJV1611) were told what to put by the Holy Spirit. They may have been possessed by the spirit, just as demons possess heathens. The actions the men took were not their own, they were the actions of the spirit.

Think to 1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

The men who wrote the Bible (KJV1611) were born of God, filled with the Holy Spirit. The were INCAPABLE of sin, or writing the wrong thing.

2. While the Bible (KJV1611) is the ONLY book the LORD has provided for us to get to know Him, there are probably people who managed to become saved prior to 1611. However, most people would have belonged to the Cathylick church, and would be in hell, just as every non-jew was bound for hell prior to Jesus (and most joos before too). Hell is really full.

3. There's plenty of room left in heaven. Praise Jesus! It's hell that is probably running out of space (or coming close to it). Just imagine, there are over 6 billion people in the world today. About 2 billion of them claim Christianity (although 99% of them are wrong). There are about 1.25 billion mudslimes... all headed to hell. There are about .8 billion hindus... headed to hell. .75 billion people claim no religion.. headed to hell. So of the current population of 6 billion people, only about 144,000 of them are going to heaven!

There's plenty of room!

Praise Jesus!!!

YIC
V

[Pastor Rune Enoe]

Re: Biblical misprints

(quoting unholy source): "Even the Bible did not escape misprints. Thus we have the "Wicked Bible," so called from the fact that the negative was left out of the seventh commandment. This authorized edition of the Bible was published in London in 1631, and it is said that the printer had to pay a fine of two thousand pounds for the omission."

Yes, "the Wicked Bible" is a prime example of why all other Bibles than the King James Holy Bible are corrupt. Here's a photo:

[Brother Guy Bayard]

Re: Biblical misprints

Yes, "the Wicked Bible" is a prime example of why all other Bibles than the King James Holy Bible are corrupt. Here's a photo:

[ATTACH]2389[/ATTACH]

Thats well worth a chuckle. Or at least it would be if I wasn't scared God would strike me down for laughing at it.
So I'm outraged. Lots.