For the book of Esther, Waite listed no changes.
The examples marked by a "+" are found in Scrivener's appendixes. Some of the other differences may be mentioned in the text of his book. Only the numbered examples were included in my count.
704 +Esther 1:8 for the king (1611) for so the king (present)
705 Esther 1:13 towards (1611) toward (present)
706 Esther 1:19 then she (1611) than she (present)
707 Esther 2:17 then all (1611) than all (present)
+Esther 3:1 Amedatha (1611) Hammedatha (present)
708 +Esther 3:4 Mordecai his matters (1611) Mordecai’s matters (present)
+Esther 3:10 Ammedatha Hammedatha
709 +Esther 4:4 the sackcloth (1611)
his sackcloth (present)
710 Esther 4:13 more then all (1611) more than all (present)
711 Esther 6:6 more then (1611) more than (present)
Waite himself listed the difference between "then" in the 1611 and "than" in the present KJV one time, but he did not list over 400 other times the same change was made between the 1611 and today's KJV. Every time the present Oxford KJV has "than" the 1611 edition had "then."
Waite himself listed the change of "you" in the 1611 to "ye" in the present Oxford KJV around 80 times, but again he overlooked and did not list over 100 times where the same change was made.
Hasn't the KJV been updated in thousands of Places?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by TheWinDork, Apr 27, 2006.
Page 2 of 3
-
-
-
Generic Caveat: I'm called to describe shoes.
If you think the shoe fits, feel free to wear it.
Please don't think that I was talking about you though,
i am talking generalities not specifics.
If the shoe doesn't fit; don't wear it.
Your propensity to judge others is NOT a problem for me.
I hesitate before i name names and judge judgements.
Pastor_Bob: //To knowingly post false
information is unacceptable. To post information that later
is revealed to be false is not dishonesty; hopefully it
is a learning experience. //
You seem to be better at cutting slack than I am.
Your hope seems more than likely highly based on
nothing but your God-given ability to 'cut slack'.
I've listened in on boards where some other board is being
attacked. There is a group of people who are continually
attacking Baptist Board trying to destroy it's witness,
especially it's multiple version ministry. (Caveat: most
KJVO attackers are NOT aware of these groups of attackers,
it is easy to get people to make attacks, if you promise
them 76 virgins - not HONEST, just easy)
The weapons of the BB attackers:
1. The easiest way to bring down BB is to get them in
legal trouble. Even if one 'wins' a legal fight, it is
the lawyers that really win. Defending one's board against
'legal' attacks is allways expensive, too expensive to be worth
the effort. The way to attack is to quote (at length)
without attriubtion.
2. Attackers don't bother to figure out their enemy, they
just attack. Unfortunately, this causes each attacker of BB
to make the same mistakes. FOr example, the defenders of the BB
in the Versions section tend to write their own material (some
may be published elsewhere, but they write their own material);
by constrast attackers copy material freely.
(I don't like this cause I'm not paid enough to debate against
professinal debaters.)
3. Troll: write stuff that is inflamatory and leave.
This term was not originally the kind of troll that lives
under a bridge like in Grimm Brothers tales. It was 'trolling
for a flame'. As in trolling for fish, one draggs a bait
around until someone bites. Here the 'bite' is a flame
post tossed at the troller.
4. ANother easy method is to get the folks there bickering
among themselves and dissipating their energies fighting
phantoms. That reminds me I have a fistfight scheduled with
Bro. Robocop3 .... ;) -
There are the same-type differences between the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and the KJV as there are between the KJV and later English translations of the same underlying texts.
In comparing the Gospel of Matthew in a modern-spelling edition of the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the present KJV edition in the SCOFIELD REFERENCE BIBLE, I counted over 1,900 differences. This count includes the use of different words, different parts of speech, omissions or additions, etc., but does not include any differences in spelling or punctuation. </font>[/QUOTE]Be careful on this when citing "the present KJV edition" in the "SCOFIELD REFERENCE BIBLE". There is also something called "The New Scofield Reference Bible" that had a KJV basis, but some updated word changes in the text. Nothing against it , and in fact I preferred it , and used one until it was stolen a few years back. [And I could not replace the exact version and wide margin edition (1967), not to mention almost 30 years of notes.] Just making the observation that there may, in fact, be a difference ;) .
In His grace,
Ed -
In my comparison, I used the regular Oxford KJV edition in the old Scofield, which was the same edition used by D. A. Waite in his comparison. -
-
Phillip,
I concur, and I was very confused. However, I think my sarcasm (a subject like this, and debating people like these would be BORING without a lil wit) was out of taste for Bob. -
-
-
Pastor_Bob Well-Known MemberOriginally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
DesiderioDomini,
It is unnecessary and unproductive rhetoric such as this that keeps most KJVO from the debate. I certainly understand TheWinDork's desire to avoid an unfruitful conversation.
If every bit of evidence if discounted, what is the use of producing any evidence at all. Perhaps Dr. Waite's research and the study done by Logos1560, although similar, is not the exact same study. For him to say, "Actually, Waite's count is inaccurate," is just throwing the evidence back in TheWinDork's face. Perhaps he could have said, "I have done a similar study and here are the results of my research."Click to expand...
Isn't that the goal here, to have a kinder gentler forum? -
Pastor_Bob Well-Known MemberOriginally posted by DesiderioDomini:
Phillip,
I concur, and I was very confused. However, I think my sarcasm...was out of taste for Bob.Click to expand... -
Pastor_Bob Well-Known MemberOriginally posted by Logos1560:
Would you consider being off by over 50% inaccurate?Click to expand... -
Bob,
Would you notice that my sarcasm came only AFTER Windork stated he would not engage in any debate?
Please read his post again, and then explain to me how my sarcasm pushed him out, when he already said he would not discuss this issue.
This is my problem, when someone posts inaccurate information, then even when someone gently corrects them, as Logos did, they still just walk out. Its dishonest. He didnt like that someone actually corrected his error, so he "took his ball and went home". Its simple, really. -
Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member
This indicative of the approach that is used many times in the textual debate. In my opinion, that is why the KJVOs do not stick around. I do not know TheWinDork, therefore I cannot begin to speak for his motivation for leaving. I can say that I would not continue a discussion that drew responses as did his. When such responses are offered, the level of the conversation drops below that which I desire to maintain. My choice would then be to withdraw.
-
Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
This indicative of the approach that is used many times in the textual debate. In my opinion, that is why the KJVOs do not stick around. I do not know TheWinDork, therefore I cannot begin to speak for his motivation for leaving. I can say that I would not continue a discussion that drew responses as did his. When such responses are offered, the level of the conversation drops below that which I desire to maintain. My choice would then be to withdraw.Click to expand...
As The leader of the National Riflemans Association Said so greatly..... "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"
and with that, I'm back to lurkin'... I've had enough of this stupidity and unbelief.
:mad: TheWinDork :mad:
[ May 01, 2006, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: C4K ] -
I feel privileged...I got to read Windork's diatribe before it got deleted.
Thanks for the belly laugh. -
Originally posted by rbell:
I feel privileged...I got to read Windork's diatribe before it got deleted.
Thanks for the belly laugh.Click to expand...
Good day!
The WinDork
[ May 01, 2006, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: C4K ] -
Have a good one.
-
Originally posted by TheWinDork:
Well, I'm just gonna tell it like it is, and if it causes someone to get thier dad-blasted undies in stinkin' knot, well, I guess it's just too dang bad...Click to expand...The King James Version *IS* the Preserved Word of God,Click to expand...You unbelieving jack legs will one day stand before an HOLY and RIGHTEOUS GOD and Give account of how you Alexanderian Cultists have systematically tried to discredit the KJVClick to expand...
BTW, if you are going to claim that God will judge us for not accepting KJVOnlyism then you need to provide a scriptural basis. Otherwise, you are guilty of adding to scripture and speaking (prophesying) where God has not... a very gross sin.and it's Godly Doctrines...Click to expand...As far as I'm concerned, ANYONE who tries to discredit the King James Version, deserves the Hottest part of Devil's Hell,Click to expand...I've used KJV since the day I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour in 1982 and I did use the other versions at one point and because I felt like I was only reading PART of the Word.Click to expand...I went back to the KJV... Yes, I've done the research, Yes, I've read the arguments by people like James WaiteClick to expand...and others, the Critics are simply Unbelievers in Christ,Click to expand...But I believe in the KJV and I use itClick to expand...
The KJV is an excellent version. It is accurate in what it teaches. It is not word for word perfect.and I'm pretty darn proud of it!!!!Click to expand...
Interesting confession though. Yes. I would say that pride has a whole lot to do with why you believe KJVOnlyism.So, you people can say whatever the heck you want.Click to expand...
But I am a KJV readerClick to expand...and I will defend it till the day I DIE and Meet Jesus Face to face!!Click to expand...
and with that, I'm back to lurkin'... I've had enough of this stupidity and unbelief.
:mad: TheWinDork :mad:Click to expand... -
This thread is terribly off topic - the topic is about revisions to the KJV.
If it does not return to topic in the next few hours it will be closed.
Here we have a classic example of how good threads go bad. One poster casts out comments that are not in compliance with the rules, and rather that reporting it, others respond in kind. A sure fire way to see a thread closed.
Page 2 of 3