View Single Post
Old 07-06-2009, 10:59 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
I concur that it is NOT an error to support the KJB. Why do you try to make it sound like I said differently?

My 1611 KJB says "oaths". My KJB is not wrong!
No, the KJB is not wrong. You are wrong to claim that "oath's" is wrong.

You said,

However, I think you are wrong about the word's number; it is plural, not singular.
Oath's is singular.

Oaths or oaths' is plural.

Since the King James Bible in all proper editions today, most especially the Pure Cambridge Edition, reads "oath's", then you are rejecting the KJB as it stands today.

What you are doing is reading your interpretation into the unstandardised grammar of 1611, when many godly men, proper editors, and KJBO believers today hold that "oath's" would have been there in 1611 HAD APOSTROPHES BEEN USED IN THOSE DAYS!