Which of the KJVs is the KJB?

As a non KJVO and even non KJVP, I would say "9".

The KJVO will say "1" and supply quotes from "3" as proof!

 

yes

 

ok..9 then

now let me go cast my real vote. Go Dallas!!!

 

That was WILD. The sad thing is, some will read this and believe it as part of history.

 

1. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]this thing - this thing also (1638)[/FONT]
2. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]shalt have remained - ye shall have remained (1762)[/FONT]
3. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik - of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik (1762)[/FONT]
4. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]requite good - requite me good (1629)[/FONT]
5. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]this book of the Covenant - the book of this covenant (1629)[/FONT]
6. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]chief rulers - chief ruler (1629)[/FONT]
7. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And Parbar - At Parbar (1638)[/FONT]
8. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For this cause - And for this cause (1638)[/FONT]
9. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For the king had appointed - for so the king had appointed (1629)[/FONT]
10. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Seek good - seek God (1617)[/FONT]
11. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The cormorant - But the cormorant (1629)[/FONT]
12. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]returned - turned (1769)[/FONT]
13. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]a fiery furnace - a burning fiery furnace (1638)[/FONT]
14. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The crowned - Thy crowned (1629)[/FONT]
15. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]thy right doeth - thy right hand doeth (1613)[/FONT]
16. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the wayes side - the way side (1743)[/FONT]
17. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]which was a Jew - which was a Jewess (1629)[/FONT]
18. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the city - the city of the Damascenes (1629)[/FONT]
19. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]now and ever - both now and ever (1638)[/FONT]
20. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]which was of our father's - which was our fathers (1616)[/FONT]

A sample of some of the major changes to the 1611. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I voted "None of the above, don't know, etc." because even the KJVO folks aren't sure which KJV it is that they are calling the KJB. Many claim it is the 1611 but use one of the later editions instead. If the KJVO folks are so confused, how do you expect the rest of us to know, Ed? :thumbs:

 

Foolish Question

II Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. (KJV 1769)

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. (KJV 1769)

 

I agree PB, although this thread can not be considered inflammatory, it does seem a little silly.

 

Missed one

Ed, Very interesting poll and it is going to be interesting the results. I do think you should have included the NKJV. It is my opinion that it will become an accepted KJV in the near future.

I have predicted before that many people are already seeing the NKJV as a KJV. I even know of people at my church who would not accept anything but a version of the KJV and now they are accepting the NKJV. Our pastor is now using the NKJV because he was afraid to use any other modern version. Of course, we're a small country church with lots of older people. I don't know any who are KJVO, but there are several that are preferred.

In saying that I predict that as soon as this generation passes (another 10 or 20 years), then the NKJV will become an accepted version and be considered a "King James" version. Mark my words.

 

You must be joking. The NKJV shouldn't even be associated with the KJB. The NKJV should be call AMV, (another modern version). I used to believe the NKJV was an updated version of the KJB with the Thees and Thous replaced. But I learned that it is just another version based on corrupt manuscripts. I am far from an expert on Bible versions, but I have learned a lot by opening my mind and putting aside my pride.

 

Would you care to list these "corrupt" manuscripts? You may be surprized if you read the preface to the NKJV to find that your statement concerning difference manuscripts between the KJV and the NKJV might not be completely true. Ever heard of the Stephens 1550?

Bro Tony

 

Tony -

Like I said, I am not a Bible versions expert. If you would care to edumacate me, I remain open minded. (always)

 

I am learning too brother about this issue. I too need edjamacation (LOL). As I understand it---and please those who know more than I add some clarity----the same basic manuscripts used in the translation of the KJV were used in the NKJV. I know those who are KJVO don't like this because they want everyone to believe that they are KJV 1611, when in truth the KJV they use and quote from are actually updates from the 1611 version. That is my understanding and am open to help in this area.

God Bless,

Bro Tony

 

I think you missed the premise of this poll. It is not to determine which editions are considered KJVs; it is a trap to try and get KJVOs to pick one edition as the King James Bible, a term that Mr. Edwards finds a bit ambiguous, if not fallacious.

I find it interesting that the New American Standard Bible can be called such, but the KJV defenders cannot use the term to describe their Bible.

 

Ye olde double standard..

 

The KJB is not

NKJV,NIV,NASB,Good news Bible,TNIV,NAS, RSV, NLT and any version from W/H But before the reformation one would not read out of any thing other than the TR.The Bible ought to be the common possession of all Christians, and needs to be made available for common use in the language of the people.But we dont need 100 translations and many Versions only one will do the job! Thorpe ""I indeed clove to none closer than to him, the wisest and most blessed of all men whom I have ever found. From him one could learn in truth what the Church of Christ is and how it should be ruled and led." said about "Doctor evangelicus"