I agree and am well aware there are many more that hold that view of the KJB. I am not quite sure what you mean though by the comment, “what about the others”. I have posted this particular case as it is one that I experienced in a reply and I was amazed at the response that came back to me. My purpose was to show those who are not aware of how faulty the thinking of this ministry is and how the KJB is often used first but then superseded by a modern version, this ministry is favored by many people I know. I am a former Baptist, however, only in my teen years. I am not in that circle to know where most of them stand, and I am not really concerned where they stand. I am just trying to do my part to wake up those that do not know how the modern versions are perverted.
I suppose there will always be printing errors in editions; however, I would think that you and I would agree that historical accounts and bible doctrine have remained unchanged in the KJB whether it is a 1769 or 1900 edition. The changes you have documented are not doctrinal or historical changes in nature. I would never debate whether the 1769 or 1900 is the perfection of the KJB 1611. I do hold that the entire lineage is unchanged in the two areas, as we know God has promised to preserve his word and I believe he has kept that promise as I am sure you do too.
In the service of Jesus Christ, Clyde
Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector
You have pointed out that Copeland does not think that the King James Bible is perfect, but what about all the other leaders of congregations and so on, who reject the King James Bible outright (and what about all those Baptist anti-KJB authors!)
Also, I think that almost no King James Bible person is using the "1769 Edition" today.
- two editions were printed by Oxford that year, both slightly differing.
- in 1806 the Eyre and Strahan reported that 116 errata had existed in the "1769 Edition".
- in 1817 D'Oyly and Mant edited the "1769 Edition" at Oxford, making further slight changes, such as changing Joshua 19:2 which had "Beer-sheba, Sheba" to "Beer-sheba, and Sheba".
- in 1833 or so, Cambridge began to print the "1769 Edition" as adopted from Oxford, with spelling changes like "axe" for "ax".
- the Oxford Editions now differ to those of Queen Victoria's time in a few places, such as "soap" for "sope".
- the Pure Cambridge Edition made almost fifty small purification changes around the year 1900, which is the final edition of the KJB now.
- in recent years, other Cambridge editions have appeared with slight differences and changes.
- other companies publish King James Bibles, and in recent years, some have Americanised the spelling, etc.
Therefore, while most King James Bibles today are based upon the 1769 Edition, they are not actually using the "1769 Edition". I can show you that the line of KJB editions does not end with the 1769 Edition, but with the Pure Cambridge Edition, which is the final presentation form of the King James Bible, and fully and exactly correct.
The New King James Version pretends to be the next great edition of the King James Bible, but that is a lie, because they are saying that there are always going to be more editions, and they have changed away from the very foundations, and have not kept to the tradition or proper lineage at all.
|
I agree and are well aware there are many more that hold that view of the KJB. I am not sure what you mean though by what about the others. I have posted this particular case as it is one that I experienced in a reply and I was amazed at the response that came back to me. My purpose was to show those who are not aware of how faulty the thinking of this ministry is and how the KJB is often used first but then supersede by a modern version, this ministry is favored by many people I know. I am an former baptist however only in my teen years, and I am not in that circle to know where most of them stand, and I am not really concerned where they stand. I am just trying to do my part to wake up those that do not know how the modern version are perverted.
I suppose there will always be printing errors in editions, however, I would think that you and I could agree that the historical accounts and Bible doctrine has remained unchanged in the KJB whether it is a 1769 or 1900 edition. The changes you have documented ae not doctrinal or historical changes in nature. I would never debate whether the 1769 or 1900 is the perfection of the KJB.