1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

KJB versus KJVs

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Ed Edwards, Dec 13, 2006.

Top Posters
  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJB versus KJVs

    What KJV are you calling the KJB?

    This is a continuation of the topic found at:
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=35610&page=21

    And that topic is quoted in this post.

    Ed Edwards: //So I humble beseech you in the Name of our
    Lord and Savior, Messiah Jesus, to put the Version,
    Book, Chapter & verse when you post scripture.
    Thank you for your kind consideration. I'll put a good
    word in with the Boss for you.//

    I'm sorry, I just can't grovel any lower.
    The Lord knows I have short fuse and great
    capacity to do harm. If I don't get results, I
    tend to get even. People beside Mike Berzins are
    welcome to pray for me in this matter.

    How hard is it reallly to add "(KJV1762 Edition)"?
    You have your Bible in your hand (or electronic copy
    in your computer literally and in your hand figuratively),
    I don't. Why do you kick against the pricks?

    Mystery quotation:
    //Psalms 68:11 The Lord gave the word: great was the company
    of those that published it/    /

    Psalm 68:11 (KJV1611 Edition):
    The Lord gaue the word : great was the +company
    of those that published it.
    Footnote: + Hebr armie.[/i]

    Not the KJV1611, has current 'V'.
    Possibly not the the KJV1611 because the KJV1611 Edition
    shows a Hebrew variant - that is, the KJV translators
    had two different ancient sources of the Old Testament
    and they varried here in this verse.
     
    #1 Ed Edwards, Dec 13, 2006
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which of the KJVs is the KJB?

    Here are the results of a Poll (now closed)
    called "Which of the KJVs is the KJB?"

    Which of the KJVs is the KJB?
    this thread has 53 replies and has been viewed 847 times

    View Poll Results: Which edition(s) of the King James Versions (KJVs)
    1. KJV1611 Edition 3 12.50%
    2. KJV1762 Edition (Oxford) 0 0%
    3. KJV1769 Edition (Cambridge) 2 8.33%
    4. KJV USA Editions 1 4.17%
    5. 1&2 0 0%
    6. 2&3 1 4.17%
    7. 3&4 0 0%
    8. 4&5 0 0%
    9. all of the above 12 50.00%
    10. none of the above, don't know, etc 5 20.83%
    Voters: 24

    As can be seen, the most popular vote is:
    9. all of the above 12 50.00%

    IMHO the KJVs are a subset of English Versions/Translations
    that have the same problem as the set of all
    English Versions/Translations.
     
    #2 Ed Edwards, Dec 13, 2006
  3. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I look at it this way, Ed...

    The English Bible version completed in 1611 is a Bible. People started associating it with King James 1, and beegan calling it the King James Bible. Others, knowing there were already several English Bibles in existence, called it the "King James VERSION".The name "King James" set it apart from any other Bible or version.

    Before that, a group of translators who'd fled to Geneva, Switzerland, made an English translation they called the Geneva Bible. It, too, is a Bible. But it's not the King James Bible. Their names set them apart from each other. But the KJB & GB are not at all the only valid English-language Bible translations. And the names of many of them end with the word "Bible". However, each is different from any other; hence each is a "version", a different translation, of the same set of writings. However, all these versions are Bibles, and each distinct Bible is a version. To me, "version" and "Bible" are interchangeable.
     
    #3 robycop3, Dec 13, 2006
  4. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand where you'r coming from, Cranston, but I view it a little differently. There are different versions of the Bible, including the ones you mentioned above. It seems to me that many onlyists use the term KJB as a deliberately provocative means of saying that their favorite version is the only real Bible, while other versions are inferior.
     
    #4 Keith M, Dec 13, 2006
  5. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That's hitting the nail squarely on the thumb.

    Yet another derogatory remark used in abundance...
     
    #5 Trotter, Dec 14, 2006
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    I agree with Cranston here, at least from my perspective. I will refer to my Bible as my King James Bible, probably more often than the King James Version. There is nothing behind it, no agenda, no provocation, no implication.

    I think this is one that we need to let go. I will call my NKJV my "New King James Bible" as well.
     
    #6 NaasPreacher (C4K), Dec 14, 2006
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think people like the Translators of the
    HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/,
    wanted to flaunt that they were translating another Bible
    not just another Version.

    Wondering about the KJV, I've seen that many KJVs don't
    bother to put their development history in their book.
    But I'm surprised that some KJV Publishers aren't into
    the fact they could sell more if they said KJB on the spine.

    But I'm probably jsut guessing???
     
    #7 Ed Edwards, Dec 14, 2006
  8. underscoretim

    underscoretim New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    0
    ok, a kjvo walks into a bar...no wait thats not it...i'll be back
     
    #8 underscoretim, Dec 14, 2006
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not near as funny as the one that starts out:

    A KJVO, a Rabbi, and a duck are sitting in a bar ...
     
    #9 Ed Edwards, Dec 14, 2006
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I missed this last night, but agree with the premise. No one who uses the New American Standard Bible implies or makes any claim for it being THE "bible". That is simply the name given to the revision of my version of choice - the 1901 ASV.

    But the perception of the other side (onlyism) is that the AV is NOT a "translation" (putting it on a par with 100 other translations of the Word of God into English) but somehow the only real "Bible".

    BTW, I like the simpler story, the one about the MV guy who walked into a bar and said "Ouch".
     
    #10 Dr. Bob, Dec 14, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...