Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... Every normal accepted traditional edition of the King James Bible which has apostrophes shows that Herod gave ONE oath. To deny this, by claim that "oaths'" is legitimate is to reject the King James Bible.

Yes, Critical, you reject the KJB when you claim that "oath's" should be "plural, not singular". And why do you reject the KJB rendering of "oath's"? I know why... "Greek".

You are a Bible corrector. You have been exposed.

I accept the 1611 King James Bible which has "oaths". Will you deny my KJB is true?

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

I accept the 1611 King James Bible which has "oaths". Will you deny my KJB is true?

In November 1833, Cambridge Editor Thomas Turton wrote, “Let me take this opportunity to state, as my deliberate opinion, that the Text of 1611 is, in consequence of its incorrectness, quite unworthy to be considered as the Standard of the Bibles now printed; and to express my conscientious belief, that to revert to that Text, as the Standard, would be productive of serious evils.”

Are we to be bound to the 1611 Edition, which is not standardised? After all, KJBOs agree that the text of the 1769 family is the correct paternal standard to our present editions.

In 1832, a representative from Oxford University Press wrote, “With regard to the text, the Delegates after considering the great incorrectness of the early editions, are of opinion that the text of Dr Blayney was formed with much care and judgment; that it furnishes on the whole, a very good basis for editions of the Bible, and that the confidence now generally reposed in it, ought not be disturbed on slight grounds.”

Should we disturb the overwhelming witness to the legitimacy of "oath's" on the grounds that the edition of 1611, which had no apostrophes, should be somehow the real presentation of the "King James Bible" against any of the present editions which King James Bible Only people actually use on Sunday mornings?

Thomas Turton also wrote, “The revision, indeed, was a work of great labour; and it cannot be too steadily borne in mind that, two centuries ago, there lived men who possessed learning to discover the anomalies with which the Text of 1611 abounded; formed resolutions to remove them; and had diligence sufficient to carry their purposes into execution. In this way was transmitted to succeeding times a Text which compared with that of 1611, may be considered as a model of correctness. The Italics of 1638 were speedily adopted. They became part of the established Text; which Text, after having been more than once subjected to the scrutiny of persons well qualified for the undertaking, was revised, for the last time, in the year 1769.”

The evidence is overwhelming for oath's.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... After all, KJBOs agree that the text of the 1769 family is the correct paternal standard to our present editions. ...

I did NOT so agree. Are you saying my 1611 KJB is wrong? I though this board defended the KJB!

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

I did NOT so agree. Are you saying my 1611 KJB is wrong? I though this board defended the KJB!

How can the typographical errors of the first edition of 1611 be right? Anyone who defends the Word of God does not defend typographical errors as though they are the Word of GOD!

Likewise, it is plain that the language in print has been standardised, so that we now have uniform spellings and grammar. And since the King James Bible has been purified in regards to the apostrophes, it is entirely proper that we receive this.

The fact is that the proper King James Bible editions being used in the last two centuries have had apostrophes, and there is no need to suddenly change or reject them on the word "oath's".

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

How can the typographical errors of the first edition of 1611 be right? Anyone who defends the Word of God does not defend typographical errors as though they are the Word of GOD! ...

You are a Bible corrector. You have been exposed.

My 1611 KJB states "oaths". There is no apostrophe, so I could not know whether it means singular or plural. It is not obvious from the context, such as the case of "Gods" in John 8:47 (clearly there is only one God with a capital G, so therefore "God's" would be accurate). So, I refer to the Greek for guidance here. Although individual manuscripts were believers' imperfect Bibles also, the majority concensus is sure. Where else can I go? The translators are at their reward; their notes are lost (it is doubtful that there would have been a comment specifically about this issue). What man can I trust?

I believe the modern printers have made an error by placing the apostrophe before the s. It is not significant, as long as one understands the truth. Just as our Christian brethern had printers' mistakes in their KJBs, so do we have a few. Perhaps someday there will be edition of the KJB that will correct these printers' error, but until then I will stick to my 1611.

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

You are a Bible corrector. You have been exposed.

I do not mind being called a corrector if it means pointing out the errors of those who claim that the KJB says something which it does not say. I support the correcting of typographical errors.

I have not corrected the text or translation of the KJB, nor have I suggested a change based on some appeal to "Neviim" or something. A person who looks to the Greek over and above the English Received Bible, that is, the KJB, is the "corrector" (i.e. corruptor) who needs to be exposed.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

My 1611 KJB states "oaths".

The King James Bible does not say "oaths". You are pointing to an edition with no apostrophes in it. But since there are now apostrophes properly placed throughout, we accept the apostrophes.

This leads me to think that if you reject the apostrophes (at least in two places), you may be rejecting all kinds of things.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

There is no apostrophe, so I could not know whether it means singular or plural.

So, how will you resolve the issue? On what basis do you claim that "oath's" must be altered to a plural form?

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

It is not obvious from the context, such as the case of "Gods" in John 8:47 (clearly there is only one God with a capital G, so therefore "God's" would be accurate).

I am not at all thinking about whether or not the apostrophes are right. I know they are right. And I know without having to look up each case.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

So, I refer to the Greek for guidance here.

You admit your erroneous approach. Well, let me now show you how this is faulty. First, there is no final Greek text to appeal to as a perfect standard. Second, various people have various opinions on what Greek words mean. Thirdly, by taking this approach, you are essentially rejecting that the KJB men, the proper KJB editors and many Christians who used and supported the KJB were right.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

Although individual manuscripts were believers' imperfect Bibles also, the majority concensus is sure.

This statement makes no sense. Are you claiming the KJB is imperfect? Are you claiming editions of the KJB are all imperfect, which means that the KJB really is imperfect?

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

Where else can I go? The translators are at their reward; their notes are lost (it is doubtful that there would have been a comment specifically about this issue). What man can I trust?

So you doubt that the KJB, which has been printed in thousands of editions from 1611 to the present year is trustworthy? Do differences in editions cause you to doubt? Are you unsure of what the KJB actually is, and therefore must console yourself with "the Greek"?

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

I believe the modern printers have made an error by placing the apostrophe before the s.

How many other errors do you claim are in all our KJB editions printed since 1769? In other words, you doubt we actually have God's Word, or certain possession of it.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

It is not significant, as long as one understands the truth.

It is significant indeed to reject the KJB as it stands. It is significant that you seek to match up to the standard of Greek, and to the standard of an edition which clearly contains numerous typographical errors, spelling irregularities and the like.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

Just as our Christian brethern had printers' mistakes in their KJBs, so do we have a few.

How can you claim this? If what you were saying was true, you would have to show us what you think they are, otherwise we do not have the knowledge of the Scripture to the jot and tittle today, and that we are somehow being "mislead" when we have doctrines which might hinge upon what you claim is a printer's mistake in present editions!

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

Perhaps someday there will be edition of the KJB that will correct these printers' error, but until then I will stick to my 1611.

If you are being serious, that is very very sad. First, because "oath's" is not an error, but you think it is. Second, because you are open to be compromised with a new edition of the KJB, for example, Scrivener's one, which does have the erroneous "oaths'" rendering. Third, because you are not believing we actually have the exact knowledge of the Word of God today. Fourth, because it would mean that all normal Bibles since 1769, particularly the ones used by KJBO folk, were all with errors.

That question "which edition?" must be answered.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... I support the correcting of typographical errors. ...

Evidently, you do not.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... The King James Bible does not say "oaths". You are pointing to an edition with no apostrophes in it. But since there are now apostrophes properly placed throughout, we accept the apostrophes. ...

My KJB says "oaths". I do not have to accept the apostrophes of printers.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... So, how will you resolve the issue? On what basis do you claim that "oath's" must be altered to a plural form? ...

How do you resolve the issue? Do you accept some man's word. What is the man's name that put the apostrophe before the s? My 1611 KJB came first, it is your Bible that is the altered one.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... First, there is no final Greek text to appeal to as a perfect standard. ...

There are no perfect Greek manuscripts or texts. Correct, but so what? The manuscripts were some ancient believers' (imperfect) Bibles. From those MSS many printed Greek (better, but imperfect) texts were made, and then early English (imperfect) translations. Is there any doubt among the Greek texts that the word translated by the KJB men should be "oaths"?

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... Second, various people have various opinions on what Greek words mean. ...

Among people that understand Greek, is there any disagreement that the word translated "oaths" is plural in Greek here?

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... Thirdly, by taking this approach, you are essentially rejecting that the KJB men, the proper KJB editors and many Christians who used and supported the KJB were right. ...

Nope. I am rejecting that the printers got it right.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... It is significant indeed to reject the KJB as it stands. It is significant that you seek to match up to the standard of Greek, and to the standard of an edition which clearly contains numerous typographical errors, spelling irregularities and the like. ...

You reject the 1611 KJB as it stands. If you sit in judgement of the 1611 KJB without any evidence, you're just guessing.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... How can you claim this? If what you were saying was true, you would have to show us what you think they are, ...

Well, I tried to show you this one (actually two) but you won't accept it.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... otherwise we do not have the knowledge of the Scripture to the jot and tittle today, and that we are somehow being "mislead" when we have doctrines which might hinge upon what you claim is a printer's mistake in present editions! ...

Don't be riduclous. The printers' errors don't change doctrine.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... That question "which edition?" must be answered.

1611, duh.