Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-06-2009, 10:21 AM
Critical Thinking
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
... Almost all these above cases clearly fall into the category of typographical errors in the first printing of 1611. ...
Mostly I agree with you. The information in the top half of your post is closer to the mark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
* Matthew 14:9 – “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”

This is utter foolishness, in that apostrophes were not used in 1611, and clearly ONE oath was made, not multiple ones, which is the suggestion of some who rely upon book-learning of the Greek. ...
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. The associated Greek article confirms it is plural. 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.
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #12  
Old 07-06-2009, 10:28 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
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.
  #13  
Old 07-06-2009, 10:41 AM
Critical Thinking
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
... 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?
  #14  
Old 07-06-2009, 10:49 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
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.

Last edited by bibleprotector; 07-06-2009 at 10:54 AM.
  #15  
Old 07-06-2009, 11:28 AM
Critical Thinking
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
... 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!
  #16  
Old 07-06-2009, 11:35 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
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".
  #17  
Old 07-06-2009, 12:42 PM
tonybones2112's Avatar
tonybones2112 tonybones2112 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by magicref View Post
I wrote elsewhere on this site (under "of Castles and Nations" topic) a possible perspective on the KJVO viewpoint:

"KJVO believe that around the late 1500's God began orchestrating things to bring the jealousy of King James and the learned Scholars (not perfect in any sense) to the right place and the right time, along with the appropriate Greek and Hebrew texts. These texts were not necessarily all GOLD in themselves, but were sufficient for the job. God, through His inspiration, enabled these fallible men, working off the base of other great men raised up by Him previously (Coverdale, Tyndale, etc.), to create a "very good" Bible in 1611 of almost pure "gold". By the time of 1769, this version was cleaned up, and is now contains ALL the GOLD, none of the dross, and is the perfect Word of God in the English language. The fruit of the KJV has been its widespread use throughout the World and its proven accuracy. Also, if all English speaking believers would use it as their base, we would ALL have the same standard to work from."

If this is the way God worked the preservation of His Word, then there could be expected to be variations between the 1611 and 1769 versions, even with the "significant" variations mentioned above. The way we know that no significant changes have taken place since 1769 is simply the fact that (as far as I know) there have not been any proper or accepted changes since then.

I don't think this is an answer that will satisfy the anti-KJ folks, but it makes sense to me!

Doug A.
Doug, I was hit recently with the "...so God chose of all people England and King James to 'preserve' in one version by supernatural means the original mauscripts in English?'

According to the World Health Organization 10,000 children are conceived on this planet each hour, that means God forms in the womb 10,000 children an hour, 10,000 human bodies, the most complex machine in the known Universe, why can't He preserve His words, every one of them, for me and you? He holds this Universe together by the word of His power, has He contracted Alzheimer's, did He forget what He wrote?

I'm by no means a Charismatic, but when you touch the keyboard of your computer it means the molecules of your fingers and the keys are in phase with each other, otherwise your fingers would go right through them, God holds an intimate knowledge of every quantum particle in the Universe together, why can't He preserve His words? Where are these people's faith?

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Grace and peace brother

Tony
  #18  
Old 07-06-2009, 03:38 PM
PaulB's Avatar
PaulB PaulB is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The Northwest of England
Posts: 158
Default Critical thinking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
When you read three additional words ("of the LORD" after "in the temple") do you really think it is just a "printing" issue? Well then, it just can't be proved either way. But it does exist. Why not deal with the issue and actually be helpful? Give the kid a substantial rebutal.
Hi - In response your point, perhaps I wasn't as clear as I intended to communicate when trying to help Codi. The way I see it is that the 1611 version probably missed out the three words in a similar way as they did with ""Thou shat kill". Printing was in its infancy at the time and these words seem to have somehow missed the final product. Because if that was not the case then I'm sure that they wouldn't have been inserted in later editions.

Hope this makes things clearer

God bless

PaulB
  #19  
Old 07-07-2009, 09:46 AM
Critical Thinking
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
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.
  #20  
Old 07-07-2009, 10:13 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
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"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical Thinking View Post
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.
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com