Why are so many post "KJVO"?

Oh, for crying out cornflakes! There is no difference between marginal notes and footnotes except for location. Otherwise, they serve the SAME purpose.

 

Give it up, my son! (Sadly shakes head!)

:applause: :applause:

Nice try! :thumbs:

Were you, perchance, expecting the 'Kewpie' doll?

Sorry! No Kewpie doll for you, this time!

Uh- try "Barker" instead, as in Robt. Barker, Printer to the King, and later Robert Barker & Sons, and still later Barker & Sons & Lucas.

This is allegedly a copy of the 1611 in Roman font, to which C4K refers, and of which Tater77 posts a facsimile.

Neither Oxford nor Cambridge published this edition (which BTW, would be neither called nor titled the King James Version for at least another two centuries and a half) nor any other Bible edition until 1629, when these two Universities were first granted this right.

Ed

 

"Which KJV? Oxford or Cambridge? " as posted by Askjo............

Uhm, the first one of course :laugh: before there were Oxford or Cambridge text lines.

This is the one that Ruckman and Riglinger claim is perfect.

 

KJVOs often look at truth about the KJVs as bashing the KJVs. Yet they're always quick to bash God's word in any other translation. apparently it's alright for them to besh other Bible translations but it isn't alright for others to tell the truth about the KJVs. That's sad...and pathetic...

 

Talk about splitting hairs! Footnotes or marginal notes...the only difference is their location on the page...

Do you have any viable arguments, Askjo? It would certainly be a first if you did.

 

I first came across Luke 17:36's note in my post-1769 KJV. It is a 1983 print "King James Classic" (Zondervan), it has the 1611 margin notes added to the current concordance. I was reading along and there it was. Then i checked my 1611 print and there it was plain as day. There are quite a few notes in the 1611 that heap coals on KJVO's.

Such as the use of "Hell" in the OT. There are more than a few notes that say " or the grave" and "or death" showing they understood sheol didn't mean one thing only.

 

Now I'm confused. Is Askjo KJVOO (King James Version Oxford Only), or KJVCO (King James Version Cambridge Only)?

 

I'm not sure on this one, but I am pretty sure that he is certainly not KJVBO (King James Version Barker Only) apparently, considering he seemingly did not even know that Robert Barker was the ONLY publisher AUTHORIZED to publish the 1611 and 1612 editions (Post # 82).

Has that sufficiently added to your confusion, now?

Ed

 

WHICHEVER it is, it's WRONG.

 

Just helping this along to page 10.... :laugh:

 

I am enjoying this thread and learning at the same time.
I am also noticing the lack of honesty many KJVO people have.
WHen they are given photographic proof that they are wrong, they still blindly hold to their erroneous position.


Sadly, many love being right more than they love the truth.

 

Uh, shouldn't that be, "Sadly, many love being WRONG more than they love the truth." Truth is ALWAYS - and the ONLY right.

:thumbs:

 

It should have been obvious that the 1611 edition printed in London was the one being referred to as the one with the marginal notes made by the KJV translators themselves.

The same marginal notes found in the 1611 London edition were also kept in a number of the later standard Cambridge editions and later Oxford editions. Cambridge did not print a KJV edition until 1629, and Oxford did not print a KJV edition until 1675. The 1762 standard Cambridge edition of the KJV had the 1611 marginal notes, and it added a few other notes.

At Hebrews 6:1, Backus maintained that the 1611 KJV has in the margin "a literal translation of the Vulgate 'the word of the beginning of Christ'" (Reformed Roots, p. 147). At Matthew 4:12, Backus asserted that the 1611 KJV put “the Vulgate reading ‘delivered up’ in the margin” (p. 48). Scrivener suggested that the 1611 marginal note at 2 John 8 came from the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p. 59). The 1611 KJV at Mark 7:3 has an alternative translation, the literal meaning of the Greek, and the translation of a church father: "Or, diligently, in the Original, with the fist; Theophilact, up to the elbow." The KJV translators put the following marginal note in the 1611 for “mercies” at Acts 13:34: “Greek, [hosios] holy, or just things; which word in the Septuagint, both in the place of Isaiah 55:3, and in many others, use for that which is in the Hebrew mercies.“ At Acts 13:18, the 1611 KJV has another marginal note that refers to the Septuagint and that also refers to Chrysostom. At Luke 10:22, the marginal note in the 1611 stated: "Many ancient copies add these words, 'And turning to his disciples, he said.'" At Luke 17:36, the marginal note in the 1611 stated: "This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." At 2 Peter 2:2, the marginal note in the 1611 noted: "Or, lascivious wages, as some copies read." At Acts 25:6, the marginal note in the 1611 was the following: "as some copies read, no more then eight or ten days." At John 18:13, the marginal note in the 1611 gave a conjectural emendation found in the Bishops' Bible: "And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest." Other marginal notes that gave variant readings in the 1611 can be found at Judges 19:2, Ezra 10:40, Psalm 102:3, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 26:26, Acts 13:18, 1 Corinthians 15:31, Ephesians 6:9, James 2:18, 1 Peter 2:21, 2 Peter 2:2, 11, and 18.

 

Tired of KJVO argument

Can anyone give me the best short answer to the KJVO's? Is it just a dogma that they hold on to no matter what? I'm tired of my faith being trashed and there are some in my family I would like to silence. The best answer I have given that I could come up (among others), is that the originals were not written in KJ english. Also that there were other english bibles prior to the KJV. Any help would be great.

 

Get hold of a reproduction GEN or MCB and pack it around, when in their company. (I'd suggest a GRT, but the chained lectern, table, or pulpit to which it would be affixed is a bit unwieldy to pack around, not to mention the whole thing could easily weigh a ton.) :laugh: :laugh:

Oh yeah! Let me be the first to welcome you to the Baptist Board. :wavey:

Ed

 

Rlee, there are no arguments that will work. They are convinced in their mind that the KJV is God's only legitimate english translation and no argument, no matter how accurate, will change their mandated mind. KJVO is refuted time and time again, but to no avail. I simply tell them now days that I don't want to hear what they have to say and change the subject. Fact is that they are not interested in what I have to say. They only want me to listen to them. I'm not going to play that game anymore.

 

Thanks sag. I feel your pain. It's sad. Very sad.

 

HEY! We're on page 10- somebody get a moderator- quick!

:laugh:

 

Welcome to the BB, Rlee.

Unfortunately, most KJV-perfectionists are not open to dialogue. It is a complex issue; I can't think of one reponse that would satisfy.

Ed's suggestion is a good one. My suggestion: ask them if they've ever read the 'To the Reader', that is, the preface from the 1611 AV translators. Most haven't, so then you can tell them that they can come back and discuss it with you AFTER they've read that very important preface to their chosen version. Be sure to have read it yourself, but most won't be back.

 

Thanks for the welcome and the advice Ed. I've been reading the board on and off now for about three weeks now and thought I would get involved. I look forward to many great conversations and helps!