Thread: 1611 vs 1769
View Single Post
Old 07-06-2009, 10:28 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
Mostly I agree with you. The information in the top half of your post is closer to the mark.

It is true that possessive apostrophes were not in standardized use at that time. However, I think you are wrong about the word's number; it is plural, not singular. It has exactly the same Greek form as found in Matthew 5:33 which is rendered "oaths" (plural). One possible way of looking at it: one statement was spoken, but it was accepted by multiple people.
What mark do you allude to? I will now present the KJB, which is pure, true and right.

Mt*14:9 And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her.
Mr*6:26 And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his oath's sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her.

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.