A Mutated Version ?

Is he talking about the Mkjv or is he using the word modern to refer to the 1769 KJV?

 

That's funny.

 

What I saw as funny was the "new" version of 1769 was called a mutation. That's what KJVOs call our modern versions isn't it? (or some similar insult?)

 

Many KJV-only advocates think and assume that they are using a 1769 KJV edition today.

All spelling updating was not finished by 1769 in KJV editions. The 1762 Cambridge edition, a 1769 Cambridge edition, the 1769 Oxford edition, and even later Oxford editions printed in 1795, 1799, 1804, and even as late as 1810 still have a character shaped like “f” for long “s” in many words. A few examples of the use of this character in the 1795 Oxford KJV edition: “fin” (Ps. 32:5), “fee” (Ps. 34:12), “chafe” (Ps. 35:5), “wife” (Ps. 36:3), “flay” (Ps. 37:14), “feed” (Ps. 37:26), “fore” (Ps. 38:2), “foul” (Ps. 42:1), and “fake” (Ps. 44:26). Hundreds and even thousands of words in the 1769 KJV had this character shaped like "f" for long "s."

The spelling of other words was also changed or updated after 1769, some after 1840, and some even after 1885. The change in several words may have been made after 1804 [“befel“ to “befell“ (2 Sam. 15:12), “Judea” to “Judaea” (Matt. 2:1), “Lebbeus” to “Lebbaeus” (Matt. 10:3), “Arimathea” to “Arimathaea” (Matt. 27:57), “Idumea” to “Idumaea” (Mark 3:8), “Alpheus” to “Alphaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Thaddeus” to “Thaddaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Bartimeus” to “Bartimaeus” (Mark 10:46), “Cesar’s” to “Caesar’s” (Mark 12:17), “vail” to “veil” (Mark 15:38), etc.] although some present KJV editions have gone back to the earlier spelling in same cases. Some words were changed after 1840 in Oxford editions [“houfhold” or “houshold” to “household” (Gen. 18:19), “houfholds” or “housholds” to “households” (Gen. 42:33), “houfholder” or “housholder” to “householder” (Matt. 13:27), “broidered” to “broided” (1 Tim. 2:9), “injoined” to “enjoined” (Heb. 9:20), etc.]. A few spelling changes were made after 1880 in Oxford editions: [“enquire” to “inquire” (Gen. 24:57), “ax” to “axe” (Deut. 19:5), “ancles” to “ankles” (Ezek. 47:3), “sope“ to “soap“ (Mal. 3:2), “ancle” to “ankle” (Acts 3:7), “enquired” to “inquired” (1 Pet. 1:10), etc.]. Some spelling changes were made after 1900 in present standard Cambridge editions.

There were also some other changes made after 1769.

 

Here we go round the mulberry bush again.

For the record--I enjoy reading the King James Bible and I wish some of you would let it be.

...Bob

 

Thank you Brother Salty!

:applause:

 

I enjoy reading the KJV. I enjoy reading the 1560 Geneva Bible, the NKJV.

Do believers actually object to anyone reading the KJVor do they actually object to the making of exclusive only claims for the KJV that are not actually stated in the Bible?

 

Yes, seems the most KJB-Obsessed here are not the KJVOs.:laugh:

 

Here's what's funny to me: people get on here and blast the KJVO guys for being against modern versions and only wanting to use the KJ. To these people, the KJV Onlyists are extremists. So what do they do but go into the other extreme by constantly attacking the KJV. That is hilarious. What's more is they typically turn hypocritical by stating their belief that a person should be able to use whatever english translation they desire, and then turning around and blasting the KJV. If you are free to use the NIV, or NASB, or the NKJV, or the CEB, then I'm just as free to use the KJV. Some of you would get mad if I attacked some of the awkwardness in the NIV, but it's perfectly fine for you to spend tons of time attacking the KJV. How about you use what you want and I'll use what I want? If someone attacks you for using a "modern version" ignore the poster. Someone presenting an extreme KJV Onlyist view isn't a valid excuse for you to blast the KJV all the time.

 

I don't know who said this but it was on Twitter and was quoted on another forum:

"If some preachers spent as much time preaching King Jesus as they do preaching King James they might see more people come to the KINGdom."

I should add- that goes for both sides.

 

Yes, some of the KJVO's are extremists. I have never said otherwise. But going into the opposite ditch is just as bad.

If you wanted to make a legitimate case against the KJVO's who claim that the modern versions are not the word of God you would do so, not by attacking the version they use and hold to be perfect, but by supporting the versions you hold to be the word of God. Instead, you attack the KJV in order to undermine their position. This is incredibly foolish and obviously does not work. In addition to this, you are attacking a book you hold to be the word of God, which I just cannot understand.

I'm a believer in the doctrines of grace. If I'm speaking to one who doesn't believe those things and I spend my time doing nothing but attacking their position, I'll never successfully lead them away from their beliefs and over to mine. This is why I've said before and will say again that most people spend more time attacking the beliefs of others rather than presenting their beliefs.

Another thing you are guilty of is justifying your own arrogant and mean behavior by pointing to such behavior in others. Apparently you haven't searched for errors in those sections of the bible which speak of not recompensing evil for evil. If someone wants to spit venom at the KJV, that doesn't give me right to attack their versions and spit venom in return.

Finally, what is sinful about holding a position that the KJV is word perfect and the modern versions are not as good, or that they are perversions, or anything of that kind? What is sinful about that? Perhaps they are wrong in their opinion, but I fail to see sin therein.

 

Are you suggesting that it is not wrong to add men's opinions, speculations, and assumptions to the Bible or to read them into verses that do not state them?

Are you suggesting that it is not wrong to claim a position is Biblical without showing that the position is actually taught in the Bible? KJV-only posters suggest or imply that their position is commanded by God and is taught in the Bible when it is not.

Is not the evident pride and arrogancy seen in the exclusive KJV-only position wrong?