Which KJV edition is 100% accurate?

Personally while there are differences and they are not word-for-word the same, any KJV Revision/Edition is a trustworthy translation.

But if forced to answer as to a specific; In my estimation the 1769 Oxford is the most accurate in respect to the source Traditional Texts of the original languages.

HankD

 

You will not get an answer from the KJVo crowd. They can't answer it.

They cannot also explain what Dr. Bob said. If the AV1611 was 100% word-for-word accurate as some KJVo say here, then there had to be a 100% accurate English Bible before this because of the "preserved for all generations, theory". If so, it would be word-for-word of the KJV. So, why translate. The Geneva was not it, because it is not 100% word-for-word perfect. So, therefore, either the "Perfect wording preservation is wrong, or someone lost a Bible in History."

 

What's with the nitpicking over the silly spelling changes in the KJV Bible, when I bet whatever Bible you use has entirely different meanings of words, changes things, summarizes, leaves verses out, etc.???

 

There are some who claim that the KJV is the very words of God and much more than just a translation. So they are given an opportunity to prove themselves rather than just make opinionated statements slamming the other translations. What I see so far is nothing more than silence by them.

 

Just to point out- this entire thread has been open for roughly 10 hours, and it is Sunday. most people are busy at church on Sunday, so give them a chance to get their opinions out! They're baptists, so I'm sure that they will get talking before too long!!!

 

No problem, but your earlier statement is clearly wrong.

The changes are not simple spelling changes. If we were to look at spelling changes only we would have "thousands"; we are looking at 400 changes and/or mistakes. For those who claim to use the AV1611, they have no idea what it contains.

Besides, I collect old Bibles and every single large Bible I have printed from the 1700's to the 1850's KJV have the apocrypha. The translators considered this as scripture, the way it is placed inside the Bible.

See the front page of each on my website at
http://www.baptist-church.org/example.pdf

If you wish, we can show you these errors. There are more errors in the KJV1611 and Oxford edition than there are between the Oxford and the ESV. Word changes are not mistakes as long as they mean the same thing.

 

Ok, so they aren't just spelling differences. But I still maintain my opinion that there are word changes in some versions that do not mean the same thing.

 

First of all you need to define exactly what version. There are bad versions out there.

Secondly, why don't you give us some specifics?

What are you comparing the "word changes" to, the Greek/Hebrew or the King James?

Another good discussion apparently going the way of the KJVo.

 

Ok, I'm sorry, but I didn't mean to get wrapped up in a debate! I was just pointing out that the different KJVs are no more different than every other version on the planet! I don't know Greek or Hebrew, so I could only compare different English Bibles to eachother.

I don't know specifics, seeing as how I don't have all the different Bibles. I just know that one of my friends has like all of the modern versions, including like teen study Bibles and stuff. And those verses, though similar, weren't the same as the KJV ones that I had learned. For example, "Let no man despise thy youth, but be thou an example of the believers in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity." In every Bible she had, the list of things was a little different. Some of the things were missing, they were rearranged, just changed.

But like I said, I didn't set out to be in a versions debate!

 

Exactly.

Some here do have formal and/or self taught training in these disciplines. So if you make statements concerning the Greek/Hebrew they will be challenged. However IMO you have made a wise choice in comparing several English translations as did the KJV translators who said that a proliferation of translations was a good thing and useful in seeing the "sense of the Scriptures".

The English language is dynamic. Not only does the King James 17th century (although somewhat modernised in the later editions) have vocabulary (meaning/spelling of words) differences but grammar (rules of speech) differences and syntax (rules of word order) differences with 21st century English which can cause confusion and unintentionally mislead the reader, especially the "unchurched".

Well, this is a "Baptist DEBATE Forum".

HankD

 

Well excuse me for skimming the recent posts (where it doesn't say DEBATE), and inserting my opinion. I thought that was legal, but I guess not! Don't worry- I won't interrupt your little debate anymore!

 

No need to apologize but please go to the top of the page and see what it says:

The expilicit purpose of this forum is for debates. I just wanted to remind you of that and the fact that if you ruffle feathers (like using inflammatory words such as "nitpicking"), you will have yours ruffled in return. Nothing personal.

Sometimes in the discourse of a debate people appear to be rude. While often they are indeed being rude (I am guilty), often they are not, but simply following the rules of engagement and rebuttal returning kind with like kind.

HankD

 

JesusInTheFirstPlace, your attitude doesn't sound much like he is. You're the one who came here making the inflammatory remarks. What did you think you were going to get in return? Applause?

 

There is NO edition, revision, version, make, or model of the KJV that is 100% accurate. Nor is there any other English translation that can claim to be 100% accurate (add to that French, German, Spanish, etc).

Does that mean that we do not have the pure word of God? Absolutely not! (God forbid for you KJVO's out there).

English is a very different language from those used to write the bible, so there cannot be 100% accuracy between them. Nor do we know which manuscript(s) are 100% accurate.

God has preserved His word. He just chose not to do it in the way the KJVO crowd wants.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Amen, Trotter, Amen!!!! Preach it.

Unlike the posts that support KJVOism, I can find nothing in your statement that contradicts scripture!!! Go get 'em!!!

 

K, guys, I know that I said that I would stay out of the debate forum, but I just wanted to say that I am sorry. I was particualarily snippish earlier, and when I reread what was written I realize that nothing anyone else said deserved the wrath of a 17-year-old girl! So, I am really sorry....forgive me??? {anxiously awaiting response}

 

JesusInFirstPlace, unfortunately you are wasting your time if you think you will get anything except scorn if you stand by the KJV.

I no longer even respond to these silly questions that the MV lovers live by.

I am convinced that God has blessed the KJV beyond any other English translation, and that is good enough for me. If you continue to view this forum you will see exactly what I am talking about.