64 errors in the Cambridge edition of the King James translation of the Bible

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Craigbythesea, Sep 15, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    64 errors in the Cambridge edition of the King James translation of the Bible

    The real and only genuine King James translation of the Bible published in 1611 correctly capitalizes the incorrect plural form “Cherubims” in the 65 occurrences of it in the Bible. The 1769 Cambridge edition of the King James translation of the Bible capitalizes it in its first occurrence, but fails to capitalize it in any of the following 64 occurrences.

    And by the way, since “Cherubims” is an incorrect plural form and it is found 65 times in both the King James translation of the Bible published in 1611 and the imperfect Cambridge edition of 1769, that means beginning with this one word, we find 129 errors in the Cambridge edition of 1769, the very edition that most KJO Independent Fundamentalist “Baptist” churches use. And considering that there are 129 errors in the Cambridge edition of 1769 in just the word “Cherubims,” just think how many errors we would find if we checked out all of the other thousands of words in the Cambridge edition of 1769!

    I hereby challenge the KJOist to find in any single “modern version” even 1% of the number of errors that we can find in the Cambridge edition of 1769.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Brother Shane

    Brother Shane
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, so the one that dont like the KJV can post that, but us ones that do can't say what we think. Figures~
     
  3. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    913
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well, at least the hymn got it right, "Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee ...", or is it wrong because it did not capitalize Seraphim?
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,805
    Likes Received:
    78
    You can say what you think - just abide by the rules when you do so.
     
  5. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    It never ceases to amaze me how what is wrong can blindly be accepted as right...

    Just another fine example of the blind KJVOs trying to lead the blind... :rolleyes:
     
  6. Brother Shane

    Brother Shane
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    0
    Keith, I THINK it's the other way around..
     
  7. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is just another example of the double standards and contradictions which make up the liberal modernism known as KJVOism.

    Is it just me or does truth seems to offend many KJVOist?
     
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,565
    Likes Received:
    4
    Better think AGAIN...Youse aint never did too hot in de EVIDENCE dept.
     
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,388
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    Your own favorite dictionary, Merriam-Webster, proves you wrong.
     
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    11,388
    Likes Received:
    1,168
    As "Holy, Holy, Holy" was written in 1826 I would guess the singular/plural had been standardized by then. But, as we all know, neither "cherubim" nor "seraphim" is a proper noun so no capitalization is required. I guess everybody knows that except a few self-proclaimed "linguists." [​IMG]
     
  11. HanSola2000

    HanSola2000
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    David J:

    Anyone who says KJVO is liberal modernism is actually espousing liberal modernism. Tis you who is the modernist, and tis you who art making up nonsense about us. Your assertions are so stupid that I cannot believe anyone would have the gall to utter them in public.
     
  12. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    HanSola, why the constant vitriol and bitterness?
     
  13. HanSola2000

    HanSola2000
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    There is no "constant vitriol and bitterness". You just made that up. Calling me a liberal modernist stretches all limits of credulity, and anyone who can say THAT is spouting pure stupidity. How come it doesn't bother you that anyone can say ANYTHING they want about KJV people? It doesn't matter how low they go, or how stupid, idiotic and false it is. Talk about a "blind eye"! Talk about giving those of your persuasion a "pass"! Well what's good for the goose....therefore Riplinger and Ruckman will continue to get a pass from us as long as peoploe like David J can say the kind of stupid, sub-moronic things they do, and no one objects, except the ones who have been slandered.
     
  14. Brother Shane

    Brother Shane
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sure!
     
  15. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah, that's better HS2000, thanks. [​IMG]
     
  16. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJVOism is liberalism because:

    1. It claims that only the KJV is the correct bible for the English speaking people with NO SCRIPTURE to support this claim.
    2. It puts words in God’s mouth by making a claim that God never made.
    3. KJVOism is pushed forth as a doctrine. There is no scripture to justify this stand therefore KJVOism is based upon a tradition created by man. Many liberal doctrines are born from the traditions of man and KJVOism is a good example.
    4. Many KJVOist willing overlook fellow KJVOist deceptions, distortions, and all out lies. Han’s uplifting of Riplinger is a good example.
    5. Just because one is a social conservative doe not exclude one from being a theological liberal.
    6. KJVOism requires that one sets aside well documented historical facts and accept a doctrines based on a few verses taken out of context.
    7. KJVOist are unwilling to tell me why the 1611 KJV was corrected without using many double standards. A conservative does not dwell in double standards and blind-eye tactics.

    KJVOism is modernism:

    1. It is a new doctrine that is found no where in the bible.
    2. KJVOism is against the Orthodox view of the Scriptures.


    Notice I did not say one thing about the KJV Han! The KJV is a fine translation of the Scriptures that still is very effective today.

    To stand against these theological liberals in the KJVO Camp is not to attack the KJV. Why do I call them liberal? Well because many KJVO authors either distort, lie, slander, and take the approach that only the KJV is the Word of God therefore everything else is wrong. It reminds me when I was debating some Christians who supported Kerry even though Kerry supported abortion. Instead of addressing the fact that a vote for Kerry is a vote for abortion they changed the subject and resorted to personal attacks. The same holds true for many KJVOist in that when facts are presented about KJVO authors deceptions, the AV1611, etc… they will almost always get offended and start being the victim. Rather than face the facts they turn tail and yap like a scolded dog.

    Now show me where I attacked the KJV and KJV people Han or recant your slander. I stand against the KJVO myth and I stand against those who try to push that myth off as the gospel truth.

    By the Han don't blind-eye my request.Prove that I attacked KJV people. Where have I attack KJV preferred people? Proof please.
     
  17. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    HanSola2000 said:

    There is no "constant vitriol and bitterness". You just made that up.

    and followed it up with:

    . . .spouting pure stupidity . . . or how stupid, idiotic and false it is. Talk about a "blind eye"! . . . stupid, sub-moronic things . . .

    [​IMG]

    Hey natters, don't you just hate being right?
     
  18. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Truth hurts.....LOL
     
  19. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, to be fair, maybe it's only occasional vitriol and bitterness. [​IMG]
     
  20. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree 100%.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...