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!

post-1885 Oxford KJV edition?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Dec 26, 2006.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother Keith M -- Preach it ! :thumbs:

    I took the moral highground when I made my axiom:

    The Divinely Preserved inerrant Written Word of God is found in each
    valid English Version collectively & individually.

    From which it is nothing to prove:

    The Divinely Preserved inerrant Written Word of God is found in each
    of the     KJVs collectively & individually.
     
    #21 Ed Edwards, Dec 30, 2006
  2. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not likely to happen, is it Hank?

    More than a backlash, Hank, I would call it fighting error with truth. The radical KJVO error is what is being fought here, not the KJVs themselves or any other valid Bible translation. Of course the word of Gid is in the KJVs, but it is also in other valid English translations beside the KJVs.
     
    #22 Keith M, Dec 30, 2006
  3. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    In your own words, Amen, Brother Ed! Preach it!
     
    #23 Keith M, Dec 30, 2006
  4. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cranston, maybe there isn't a single edition of the KJV that is absitively, posolutely perfect. Maybe we need to take bits of the various KJV editions and put them together something like the after-the-fact Textus Receptus to come up with perfection. Yet there isn't a single KJV edition that got Acts 12:4 right, so any compilation of KJV renderings is going to have at least one error!
     
    #24 Keith M, Dec 30, 2006
  5. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, I am aware of that bro Ed.

    The same could be said of "Savior" and "Saviour", they are pronounced the same.

    HankD
     
    #25 HankD, Jan 1, 2007
  6. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seems we Americans got lazy over the years and dropped the u from lots of words - Saviour, colour, odour, etc. That's another fine eample of the Americanization (Americanisation?) of the English language! This Americanization shows up in the American King James Version (AKJV).
     
    #26 Keith M, Jan 1, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 1, 2007
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,217
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I don't know if that can all be blamed on Americans. There were several words in the 1611 edition of the KJV that had "u" that was later dropped in later British editions of the KJV. For one example, the 1611 KJV has "souldiers" (Acts 12:4) while later editions have "soldiers." There was also several words in the 1611 that was spelled in more than one way: sometimes with a "u" and sometimes without one.

    It is true that some American editions of the KJV were more consistent in dropping a "u" from some words. The present American Bible Society edition of the KJV does that. Some American KJV editions seem to have been more consistent in their editing as they corrected some inconsistencies left in British KJV editions.
     
    #27 Logos1560, Jan 2, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...