Which of the KJVs is the KJB?

:thumbs::laugh:

 

I mistyped spelling. :type: I apology.

 

How does this poll attempt to get KJV-only advocates to pick only one edition when there is the choice that anyone can pick "all" and there are the choices where two different editions can be picked?

By the way, the 1762 standard KJV edition was printed by Cambridge while the 1769 standard KJV edition was printed by Oxford. There are at least three present-day Cambridge editions, but none of them are every word the same as the 1762 Cambridge. There is a new 2005 Cambridge edition available. I do not know of any present-day Oxford edition that is every word the same as the 1769 Oxford edition.

 

Well, which KJV is the KJB? They're all different.

 

So does that make it right or wrong? Of course not.


Many verses in the KJV don't match the Textus Receptus, which doesn't match the mss from which it was made. Don't think so? just ask any Koine Greek reader who's made those comparisons.

 

Originally Posted by Pastor_Bob
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,

Some KJVOs insist the KJV(B) is absolutely perfect; therefore, for them, there should be only ONE perfect edition. Changing one punctuation mark or one spelling, such as Saviour to Savior, or vice versa, would make that edition imperfect. If those KJVOs cannot name their perfect edition, then it seems their "stance" is a sham.

 

Pastor Bob said:

Anti-Alexandrian said:

Not a double standard at all, guys! The error is on the part of KJVO folks. They want to change the title to read "King James Bible" when it has never beeen titled as such. The word "Bible" is included as a part of the title New American Standard Bible. Check the title pages. The double standard is on the part of the KJVO folks who want to call the King James Version what it was never called. The KJV is the Bible, but so is the NASB. To say the NASB is not the Bible is to blaspheme the word of God.

 

So one version will do the job, huh? But the one version that you guys so boldly advocate was translated nearly 400 years ago. There have been many changes to the English language in the four centuries that have passed. The language has changed so much so that many words have dropped from use or changed in meaning. The idea that one version is all that is necessary is totally absurd because it totally ignores that a living language changes. Therefore, new translations are needed to keep the Bible alive for readers of every generation.

 

Then what are you going to do with the NASB being FIRST called the ASV??????????? It was first called a VERSION.

 

Here we go round the mulberry bush.

This thread is going over the same old tired points.


We are on page five - I don't think anyone has discussed which edition if the KJV is THE KJB so I am announcing a closure time of 1400 EDT today.

 

UM, the 1762 is the Cambridge, not the Oxford.

It might be best for Bible "scholars" to research their own material before submitting a poll.raying:


raise: :Fish: raise:

 

Better check your "facts" here, AA! You're talking about two separate Bible versions. One is the American Standard Version, the other is the New American Standard Bible. These two translations are different just as the King James Version of 1611, the King James Version of 1769 and the New King James Version are different.

And...

Two different versions, two different titles, AA. It would probably help if you would check the information before you make such fanciful claims. :laugh:

 

As it is now 1400 EDT - this thread is closed.