KJV Preference, the Poll

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Ed Edwards, Aug 28, 2003.

?

KJV Preference, the Poll

  1. I'm KJVO, the KJB is the KJV1611

    7.8%
  2. I'm KJVO, the KJB is the KJV1769

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. I'm KJVO, the KJB is the KJV1873

    11.8%
  4. I'm KJV+, the KJB is the KJV1611

    25.5%
  5. I'm KJV+, the KJB is the KJV1769

    5.9%
  6. I'm KJV+, the KJB is the KJB1873

    49.0%
  7. I just want to read the results of the poll

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which King James Version (KJV) variant
    do you believe is the King James Bible (KJB)?
    Read the second post for a quick test
    of which KJV variant you probably have
    with you.
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    One quick test among the three variant KJVs
    is the last phrase of Ruth 3:15.
    Ruth is a small book in the Old Testament
    between Judges and 1 Samuel.

    Ruth 3:15d (KJV1769)
    ... and she went into the city.

    Ruth 3:15d (KJV1873):
    ... and he went into the city.

    Ruth 3:15d (KJV1611):
    ... and he went into the citie.

    BTW, if the KJV1873 and KJV1611 are correct
    (and they appear to be, check verse 16)
    then the KJV1769 is wrong and has an error in it.
    The spelling variant of citie or city is just
    a minor spelling variant and shouldn't bother
    anybody. But was it Ruth or Boaz who left
    to go into the city? BTW again, the
    original language sources
    have a variant reading here in the he/she matter.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    KJV1769 and NASB agree with ME (she)

    Was surprised to see the NIV says 'he'.
     
  4. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well good. That means you agree that the KJV has errors in it and that there is no perfect translation. You're moving in the right direction!

    Andy
     
  6. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    This man is an idiot, he says THE KJV says she. Yet not all of them do. Check your KJV(1873).
     
  7. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you all read the site? The King James has no errors and the "he, she" is a typo.
     
  8. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    A typo is an error.
     
  9. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    :eek: How do we know there weren't more typos? How do we know they were all fixed? By what authority do we determine where typos exist, and by what authority do people determine how to correct them? How do we know they didn't introduce more errors by "correcting" what was believed to be a typo but really wasn't?

    I believe that if all the typos in the KJV were corrected, what you'd end up with would be identical to the NIV. [​IMG] ;) [​IMG]
     
  10. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    ***Did you all read the site? The King James has no errors and the "he, she" is a typo.

    Yes I read it. He is wrong. There are some editions of the KJV that still say "he". Check the 1873 edition.

    Please respond to my post in "My dog ate my BAGD!"
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    And the sad part of that site is the continual attack on Doug Kutliek (a cyber-friend) in the most unchristian ad hominen way.

    Doug has probably punched more holes in the fallacious KJVO sect's "proof" than any other person I know. That makes him an enemy, I guess.

    So does yelling "THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES". But someone needs to do this and stop these lemmings from plunging over the cliff . . and causing those of us who love the Word of God and ALL good English translations loss of testimony with the world we are seeking to win.
     
  12. swordsman

    swordsman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great link Homebound, thanks.
    Here is my favorite quote from the article that I feel fits so many in this forum.( I refer to them as the Laodicean Sect ) [​IMG]
    Swordsman


    "That people like Mr. Kutilek have to resort to such petty arguments as this against the King James Bible, only shows how very weak their case is and how desperate they are to find any error at all in God's infallible words" ;) :
     
  13. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aren't threads of a sexual nature still banned?
    ;)
     
  14. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Aritmaeus, Nope! The Emperor can have no clothes here again. ;)
     
  15. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    So your God can preserve his word perfectly for 1600 years but can't seem to get a printer to get the right letter in place?? What kind of God is that??

    And since when is a typo not an error??? All of my teachers when I was in school seemed not to be so loving. They all though typos were errors ... and they marked us down for it. Had only we known that a typo is not an error, we could have argued with them ... maybe even sued them for trauma and abuse for their silly narrowminded thinking that a typo was actually wrong ...

    What you have here is a difference and things that are different are not the same. And it is a significant difference, as anyone familiar with "he"s and "she"s knows ...

    :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
     
  16. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    No,what we have here is a complete and brash ignorance of the word of God(AV);not to mention a outright and transparent hatred of the KJB.If people would read and study the Scriptures(2 Tim 2:15)instead of gnat straining,much would be accomplished;they both went into the city(Ruth 3:16 and 4:1),read it.What amazes me the most is people that call themselves Bible-believers get into a lather over this,and give no thought about the deletion of God in the strongest passage in the NT on the deity of Christ(1 Tim 3:16).
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alas, it is poorly presented.
    In fact Ruth 3:15 has the he/she variant
    in the Textus Receptus family of documents.
    I know this because the REAL BIBLE, the
    New International Version (NIV) told me so.

    How do I know?
    The Bible tells me so!


    [​IMG]
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings AV Defender! [​IMG]
    Care to mention who authorized the KJV1611?
    Care to mention who authorized the KJV1769?
    Care to mention who authorized the KJV1873?

    I know it was King James I of England
    that authorized the KJV1611. I haven't
    the foggiest who authorized the
    KJV1769 and KJV1873.
     
  19. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to the Ruth 3:15 test, both my KJB's are 1769.
    Thank you Ed. [​IMG]
     
  20. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    But you guys are claiming perfect preservation down to the jot and tittle level. All we're doing is pointing out gnats to show you that your position is wrong. We don't have to show big problems. In fact, there aren't big problems with the KJV. The big problem is with a position that is unbiblical.

    Andy
     

Share This Page

Loading...