Will the Real KJV Please Stand Up!

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Craigbythesea, Feb 3, 2004.

  1. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    I have many different copies and editions of the King James Version in my study, so I took a look at them to see how they differ. I found Matt. 4:2 especially interesting. Here is a summary of what found. Notice especially the last phrase in that verse.

    Mat 4:2 And when hee had fasted forty dayes and forty nights, hee was afterward an hungred. 1611

    Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. 1817

    Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1824

    Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1867

    Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward ahungered. 1971, American Bible Society


    We find here five different renderings of the last phrase in Matt. 4:2, all them in the KJV:

    hee was afterward an hungred.
    he was afterward an hungered.
    he was afterward a hungered.
    he was afterward an hungred.
    he was afterward ahungered.

    Has the KJV preserved for all eternity God’s Holy Word in English? My grandmother did a better job than this of preserving her strawberries.

    But that is not all! How about the readability. :( What English tense is being rendered here? :confused: Do any of you King James Bible Only folks know the answer to that question? :confused: And what is the difference between being "an hungered" (etc.) and being "hungry."? :confused: Do any of you King James Bible Only folks know the answer to that question? :confused:
     
  2. Walls

    Walls
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Geneva says (Mat 4:2) And when he had fasted fourtie dayes, and fourtie nights, he was afterward hungrie.


    If you can get past the spelling, it seems pretty modern to me!
     
  3. rbrent

    rbrent
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow! Talk about straining out a gnat to swallow a camel - your sense of proportion is all messed up!

    The MVs butcher the scriptures of truth,

    Assaulting the deity of Christ

    Chopping out 'Christ', 'God' and 'Lord' from the scriptures.

    They REMOVE THOUSANDS of WORDS and as many as 18 VERSES...

    When the MVs are too tired any longer to wield the 'penknife of Jehudi' they cling to their tattered version and then you

    have the temerity to strain out the gnat of spelling differences in some editions of the KJV while ignoring the odious MV doctrinal camel?

    GET A LIFE BUD!

    If you don't have the mental or spiritual horsepower to figure out the HUGE difference between spelling changes from multiple publishers, who change the spelling and still call their book a KJV -

    And the many thousands of word deletions and changes and verse deletions of the MVs which have definite doctrinal implications, nothing anyone posts here will help you.
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    From their source texts, or from the KJV?

    From the cource texts, or from the KJV?

    Does this mean you're not going to answer the question? Rather, you prefer to change the subject. Typical KJVOlater bait-and-switch.
    Again, deletions from what? The KJV, or their source texts?

    If there's nothing wrong with changing "hee was afterward an hungred" to "he was afterward a hungered", what is wrong with changing it to "He was hungry afterwards"?
     
  5. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Guys,

    How about staying on topic! This thread is about the KJV. [​IMG] It is not about any other translation, ancient or modern. :(
     
  6. rbrent

    rbrent
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Johnv-

    You are being obtuse or disingenuous or both - Craigbythesea's post was not a request for information.

    You know that.

    I know that.

    Craigbythesea knows that.

    It was 'baiting' KJV believers - nothing more.

    I have no problem at all if you want to make a translation and say "He was hungry" instead of "He was an hungered."

    You avoided the fact that there is a vast difference in making a change to "He was hungry" and the MVs making doctrinal word changes like omitting "God" from I Tim 3:16 or "blood" from Eph 1:7 - those words are IN the Majority of the 5000 extant Greek texts, as you very well know.

    And as far as your straw man of 'source texts' - the 'source texts' the MVs use are NOT the Majority Text.

    The 'source texts' of the MVs are the defiled, inferior, corrupt, emended texts of the North African church, frequently on vellum scrolls instead of parchment, in classical Greek instead of Koine Greek.

    Who taught you that the best manuscripts would come out of Alexandria, Egypt or any other part of North Africa?

    Do you defend the corrupt 'source texts' from which sprang the MVs?

    If you folks who so hate the KJV would only be content to rephrase things like "he was an hungered", us KJV folks wouldn't wonder at your motivations so much.

    You do yourself no honor to defend the indefensible and take the side of infidels, heretics, spiritists and Unitarians.
     
  7. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    WOW! This is a prime example of what begins to happen when one starts doubting their Bible.

    Such topics as to "which year", etc, have simply flown over my head...all I know is whatever "year" it was that I got my first KJBible, must've been the "right" year.

    I don't know anything about which came before it, but I know God had His Hand in putting it there. Whatever line of ancestry my Bible came from is pure & God used men to write those very Words of His.

    There weren't these kind of "problems" in my day; at least not that I was aware. If all these folks who use "something else" are so contented, then why do they not seem so?

    They do their very best to try to dissuade us from our faithfulness to the Word we hold so dear. I only use the KJBible and nothing else, except "faith" & "trust". How simple that is!

    I do not serve a powerless God. He is more than able to preserve His Word down thru' the ages & He has...God's Word/KJHolyBible.
     
  8. rbrent

    rbrent
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    To answer Craigbythesea's question:

    Will the real KJV please stand up?

    There have been many hundreds of printers and publishers down the centuries who put out their own editions of the KJV.

    When type was set by hand, human error crept in and causes some versions to contain mispellings and in some cases, letters or words were left out.

    Some of those printer's errors were not caught and were reprinted many times.

    (1) KJV believers are not responsible for the printing errors

    (2) and are not responsible for the "unannounced" revisions made by Bible printers in almost every press run.

    There are many relatively small differences between the various KJVs because in the free enterprise system, there is no way to force every Bible printer to print exactly the same text.

    While you "puzzle over" the minor differences in spelling, as if that is a major problem for folks who believe the KJV, I for one, question your motivation.

    I wonder why you aren't "puzzling over" the MVs almost universally uniform doctrinal assault on the KJV and the Majority text, by elevating the corrupt Vatican Manuscript 1209 and the Sinaiticus manuscript to a position of prominence?

    Whatever the MINOR differences between editions of the KJV, they pale to insignificance when compared with the MANY thousands of word deletions affecting doctrine which we observe in the MVs.
     
  9. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Amen, Sister GG, Amen! [​IMG]

    I like the KJV language, too. It goes so well with some of my favorite old hymns, LOL.

    And can it be that I should gain
    An interest in the Savior’s blood?
    Died He for me, who caused His pain—
    For me, who Him to death pursued?
    Amazing love! How can it be,
    That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
    Amazing love! How can it be,
    That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

    Somehow wouldn't seem the same using MV language, LOL. [​IMG]
     
  10. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, you are Okay w/ the KJV1982? (aka NKJV) Most KJVO's imply, "If it ain't the KJV, it ain't for me". And as far as I know, no one on the BB despises the KJV1611,1769, etc except perhaps Daniel David. BTW, the MV's do not omit "blood" at Eph 1:7; you are probably thinking of Col 1:14. ;) Since I'm "Traditional Text Preferred", I do not like it either. (But I understand why , and it's no conspiracy, in my view to attack Christ's blood, because the MV's mention the blood time and time again.)
    Hava nice day [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  11. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    The source texts being defiled, inferior, corrupt, etc, are strictly opinion. They're opinion that many share, and I can respect your opinion indeed. But your opinion is not scripture.

    If memory serves, these texts are earlier than the TR. So far, it appears that the Dead Sea Scrols (which date to nearly the time of Jesus) tend to support the older manuscripts (if anyone has info on that, please post). But I don't see any reason to support "source text onlyism", although I could definitely understand it. As for me, I have not made up my mind on source texts.

    If you can provide conclusive evidence for their corruptness, then I'll agree with you. But source texts onlyism and KJV onlyism are two different arguements.


    Hey I love the KJV. I think it's great. But I don't adhere to any kind of "onlyism", be it the KJV, NIV, NASB, Tyndale, Geneva, etc. Such onlyism is scripturally unsupportable, and is false doctrine.
    If it means I'm not adding to scripture by asserting a heretical version-onlyist view, then sure.
     
  12. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    And you're welcome to, and I completely support your decision to use only the KJV for yourself. However, if you were to believe that ONLY the KJV is the word of God, then you'd be violating scripture by adding doctrine, and I don't hink you want to do that.
    I serve the same God. He preserved his word prior to the KJV, and he has preserved it since. Preservation, however, has nothing to do with translation. Many Christians forget that.
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not a fan of hymnal theology. Most hymns, btw, have multiple texts for every tune, in multiple languages. Adhering to only one set of text to each tune is a relatively recent occurrence. There's no reason (outside of preferred tradition) to stick to only ne text per tune.
     
  14. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    You guys have not answered my questions:

    What English tense is being rendered here? Do any of you King James Bible Only folks know the answer to that question? And what is the difference between being "an hungered" (etc.) and being "hungry."? Do any of you King James Bible Only folks know the answer to that question?

    Here are some more questions.

    Does printing the words "The Authorized Version of 1611" on the front page of a Bible make it a KJV?

    How much freedom with the text is a publisher of the KJV allowed to make?

    If I published a Bible like one of the hundreds of other editions and printings of the KJV but used the words, "he was afterwards hungry," would that mean that the Bible that I published was not a KJV?

    Are the words, "he was afterwards hungry" a grammatically correct translation of the Textus Receptus?

    What English tense did the KJV use in this verse?

    Why did they use that particular English tense in this verse?

    What kind of action does that English tense describe?
     
  15. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are some very real differences between the 1611 KJV and today's KJV's. Some examples:


    "And she laid up his garment by her, until *her* lord came home." (Gen. 39:16, 1611 KJV)

    "And she laid up his garment by her, until *his* lord came home." (Gen. 39:16, today's KJV)

    Whose lord came home -- hers or his?


    "If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels, and the ox shall be stoned." (Ex. 21:32, 1611 KJV)

    "If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels *of silver*, and the ox shall be stoned." (Ex. 21:32, today's KJV)

    Just "shekels?" Or "shekels" of a specific type?


    "And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the *names* of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." (Ex. 23:13, 1611 KJV)

    "And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the *name* of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." (Ex. 23:13, today's KJV)

    One name or many names?


    "And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be *an unleavened cake* of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil." (Lev. 2:4, 1611 KJV)

    "And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be *unleavened cakes* of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil." (Lev. 2:4, today's KJV)

    How many unleavened cakes are required here? Just one? Or more than one?


    "Even those that were numbered of them, throughout their families, by the *houses* of their fathers, were two thousand and six hundred and thirty." (Num 4:40, 1611 KJV)

    "Even those that were numbered of them, throughout their families, by the *house* of their fathers, were two thousand and six hundred and thirty." (Num 4:40, today's KJV)

    One house or many houses?


    "O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deut. 5:29, 1611 KJV)

    "O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep *all* my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deut. 5:29, today's KJV)

    Will it be well with Israel if they keep just some of God's commandments, or must they keep all of them?


    "And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks *at* the time of harvest,)" (Josh. 3:15, 1611 KJV)

    "And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks *all* the time of harvest,) (Josh. 3:15, today's KJV)

    Does the water of the Jordan overflow at some point during harvest season, or does it overflow throughout the entire harvest season?


    "And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give king David's spears and shields, that were in the temple." (2 Kg. 11:10, 1611 KJV)

    "And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give king David's spears and shields, that were in the temple *of the LORD*." (2 Kg. 11:10, today's KJV)

    Is it just "temple," or is it "temple of the LORD?"


    "The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek *good.*" (Psa. 69:32, 1611 KJV)

    "The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek *God*." (Psa. 69:32, today's KJV)

    So do we seek good or God?


    "Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yea further though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it." (Eccl. 8:17, 1611 KJV)

    "Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, *yet he shall not find it*; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it." (Eccl. 8:17, today's KJV)

    Are the words "yet he shall not find it" the words of God or not?


    "Sing, O *heaven*; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for *God* hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted." (Isa. 49:13, 1611 KJV)

    "Sing, O *heavens*; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for *the LORD* hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted." (Isa. 49:13, today's KJV)

    Is it "heaven" or "heavens?" And is the Divine Name used here or not?


    "So the king sware secretly unto Jeremiah, saying, As the LORD liveth, that made us this soul, I will not put thee to death, neither will I give thee into the hand of these men that seek thy life." (Jer 38:16, 1611 KJV)

    "So *Zedekiah* the king sware secretly unto Jeremiah, saying, As the LORD liveth, that made us this soul, I will not put thee to death, neither will I give thee into the hand of these men that seek thy life." (Jer 38:16, today's KJV)

    So is the king mentioned by name or not?


    "Concerning the Ammonites, thus saith the LORD; Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth their king inherit *God*, and his people dwell in his cities?" (Jer. 49:1, 1611 KJV)

    "Concerning the Ammonites, thus saith the LORD; Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth their king inherit *Gad,* and his people dwell in his cities?" (Jer. 49:1, today's KJV)

    Have the Ammonites inherited both God and God's cities? Or merely the territory and cities of Gad?


    "And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto *thy people*, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." (Ezek. 3:11, 1611 KJV)

    "And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto *the children of thy people*, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." (Ezek. 3:11, 1611 KJV)

    To whom is Ezekiel to go -- to his people, or to their children?


    "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, 1611 KJV).

    "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it *not* upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, today's KJV).

    So did she pour it out or not?


    "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art *Christ*, the Son of the living God." (Mt. 16:16, 1611 KJV)

    "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art *the Christ*, the Son of the living God." (Mt. 16:16, today's KJV)

    Just Christ? Or THE Christ?


    "But when he saw Jesus afar off, he *came* and worshipped him" (Mk. 5:6, 1611 KJV)

    "But when he saw Jesus afar off, he *ran* and worshipped him" (Mk. 5:6, today's KJV)

    Did the man simply come to Jesus, perhaps walking? Or did he run to Jesus?


    "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of *things* from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" (Lk. 1:3, 1611 KJV)

    "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of *all things* from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" (Lk. 1:3, today's KJV)

    Did Luke have perfect understanding of only a few things, or of all things?


    "Therefore his *sister* sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." (Jn. 11:3, 1611 KJV)

    "Therefore his *sisters* sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." (Jn. 11:3, today's KJV)

    Did only one of the two sisters send word to Jesus about Lazarus, or did they both send word?


    "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, *helps in governments*, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor. 12:28, 1611 KJV)

    "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, *helps, governments*, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor. 12:28, today's KJV)

    Is Paul speaking of one administrative gift known as "helps in governments," or is he speaking of two different gifts, a gift of "helps" and a gift of "governments?"


    "In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:" (2 Cor 11:32, 1611 KJV)

    "In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city *of the Damascenes* with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:" (2 Cor 11:32, today's KJV)

    Just "the city?" Or "the city of the Damascenes?"


    "Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." (Eph. 6:24, 1611 KJV)

    "Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. *Amen*. " (Eph. 6:24, today's KJV)

    Do I hear an "amen" or not? [​IMG]


    "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than *edifying* which is in faith: so do." (1 Tim. 1:4, 1611 KJV)

    "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than *godly edifying* which is in faith: so do." (1 Tim. 1:4, today's KJV)

    So is it merely edifying, or is it a particluar kind of edifying, namely, godly edifying?


    "The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, but especially the parchments." (2 Tim. 4:13, 1611 KJV)

    "The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, *and the books*, but especially the parchments." (2 Tim. 4:13, today's KJV)

    Was Timothy to bring the books or not?


    "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual *sacrifice*, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5, 1611 KJV)

    "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual *sacrifices*, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5, today's KJV)

    Is Peter telling us to offer one single spiritual sacrifice, or many different spiritual sacrifices?


    "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not *the Son* hath not life." (1 Jn. 5:12, 1611 KJV)

    "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not *the Son of God* hath not life." (1 Jn. 5:12, today's KJV)

    So is it "the Son" or "the Son of God?"


    These are but a few of the numerous instances of differences in wording and meaning between the 1611 KJV and today's KJV. Which version in each of these cases is correct? And since the "original" translators' copy no longer exists, how do we *know* which version is correct? Which version has God's "pure, preserved words?" How can we *know* this for certain?

    Will the *real* KJV please stand up? [​IMG]
     
  16. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    With all respect, Craigbythesea, those of us who love and use the KJV, don't care. It doesn't matter - it's trivial. It's God's Word. The only people who seem to think it's some big issue are those who want to bash the KJV.

    Maybe you should pray about it. ;)
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Or, perhaps, in cases like myself, the question is asked to better understand God's word and its translations.

    To point out translational problems with the KJV is by no means an attack on the KJV, unless viewed by someone who worships the KJV.
     
  18. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    With all respect, Craigbythesea, those of us who love and use the KJV, don't care. It doesn't matter - it's trivial. It's God's Word. The only people who seem to think it's some big issue are those who want to bash the KJV.

    Maybe you should pray about it. ;)
    </font>[/QUOTE]If a reader does not understand the tense of the verbs in the sentences that he/she reads, he/she does not understand the sentences. :confused: If a reader can not understand the KJV, he/she should either learn how to understand it or read a translation that he/she can understand. [​IMG] So far, I have not found a single person who understands the tense in the phrase under discussion. :(

    I believe that God does not only want for us to read the Bible, but that He also wants for us to understand it. [​IMG] If the language structure in a translation of the Bible is so archaic or obscure that it is almost impossible to understand parts of it, there is a serious problem with that translation—it does not preserve God’s word, it obscures it! :( In Matt. 4:2 we can see that even King James Bible publishers had a very difficult time trying to figure out the correct way to render the Matt. 4:2. :(
     
  19. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Archangel7,

    Thank you for your very courteous and informative post. [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  20. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kudos for Craigbythesea!


    I've been writing lots of replies for this forum.
    I've got three or four i can't post because the
    Topic has been closed. I ask the same question.
    I've also found some individuals KJVOs have lost my
    respect because they cannot or will not answer my
    question:

    Which of the following is the AV 1611 KJB of which
    you speak?

    1. KJV1611
    2. KJV1769
    3. KJV1873

    I mention these three (instead of the ones Craig mentions)
    because they are the three KJVs that I have on
    my computer desk (within reach when I'm posting).

    In General I've found two answers among KJVOs
    (those with enough integrity to answer) to my question:

    1. the KJV1769 (the KJV1611 is contaminated with
    sidenotes containing variations in the Textus Receptus)

    2. all three (there is no significant difference between
    the them)

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...