Is the KJV preserved?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by tinytim, Jan 17, 2004.

  1. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I mean the 1883 edition.

    I posted a topic "1769 vs 1883" to get some KJVO ideas on this 121 year old Bible, and to this point no KJVO has even answered my Questions. Where are you?
    Here are my questions again.

    1. What are the major differences between the 1769 ed. and the 1873 besides the obvious paragraph form change?

    2. What do KJVO think about the footnotes that are in it, considering most kick the notes in MVs stating that they cause confusion? (The 1873 has 6,637 marginal notes that were in the 1611, and 473 notes that have appeared in all the other previous editions.

    3. Which KJV is preserved the 1769 or 1873? According to the "If it's different, than it can't be the same" argument one can't be preserved, so which one is the preserved one?
    (Ruth 3:15 for ex. "he" or "she", yeah I know "printer error" but which one is right. If 1611 and 1873 are right then 1769 has an error in it.)

    If you're KJVO you must know something about this KJV. Please share. [​IMG]
     
  2. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Since this is a duplicate thread, I am closing this one. If you would like to respond, you may do so on the above mentioned thread containing the same questions.
     

Share This Page

Loading...