Zondervan did not always publish the Scrivener edition, and may only be reproducing it in some of its KJBs.

As for the one mentioned by textusreceptusonly, it is probably following one of these two editions: The two edition-types from recent years with lowercase "spirit" in Genesis 1:2 are the Cambridge Standard Text Edition (appeared in circa 1993), and the Eyre and Spottiswoode Edition from about the 1950s.

The American editions traditionally (but not always) followed the Oxford or a mixture of the Cambridge Edition(s). These type of KJBs (as were printed by Thomas Nelson and others) were considered "normal".

Two things have happened in recent years:
(1.) a lot of editing/modernising has been going on in KJBs.
(2.) there is now a rising degree of understanding concerning the editions issue, including a push to promote one particular Cambridge Edition as the standard edition.
See http://www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm

So, with the one that I ordered, is it the "true" Word of God then?

Like Pilate, you must resolve the question of "What is truth?" to begin with.

If you received the Word of God from the Holy Ghost's provision, then you got the true Word of God.

Johannine Comma -Cambridge Paragraph & Octapla
 

Scrivener's 1873 Paragraph Edition had "strain out a gnat", "profession of our hope" and 1 John 5:7 in italics. These things have probably been changed in the recent Zondervan reprintings. Just when a few people thought that Scrivener's edition was the best, then Norton's edition came along, which several think is better. Of course, these editions are way off the track.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Cam...aragraph_Bible

I don't understand...?

Psalm 68:11 says, "The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it."

John 17:14a says, "I have given them thy word".

1 Thess. 2:13 says, "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

From these verses and many others we can conclude that the Word is single (one), not plural (many), and we can see that God has promised to get one Word to us today.

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God" (2 Cor. 2:17a). There are corrupters around, so we could not just accept anything as "the Word of God", but must see that there is the true, and that there are those which are of the error and corruption.

OK I know that, but how do I know if I'm using the right translation of the KJV?

There is only one translation or version called the King James Bible.

No there isn't. There has been many revisions to the KJV Bible. What exact Bible are you using? Can you find it on a website and show it to me?

Yes there is. Please show one version text or translation difference in the Scripture between the first edition of 1611 and, for example, the presentation of the King James Bible which is online on this site. http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-bible-text/index.html

The revisions are just changes in the presentation (e.g. typeface, spelling, typography, etc.) Please produce even two or three actual changes to the Word of God.

The King James one.

Easily.

Oh okay, so the Ryrie KJV Bible that I am using is accurate then, OK, thanks!

The King James Bible is the right text (the right set of words) and an accurate translation (the right English words with the right meaning). The notes by Ryrie, Scofield or Dake are not infallible. But the King James Bible itself is Scripture.

The King James Bible is so accurate that anything else is inaccurate in comparison.

OK, cool! I just wanted to make sure that I was reading a wrong type of KJV.

I would not recommend the use of Greek and Hebrew lexicons which are all corrupted. I would even recommend against getting a bible dictionary because these too are not reliable as well. What I would recommend getting is a copy of the Websters 1828 Dictionary to help you with words, but more importantly I'd recommend the book "The Language of the King James Bible" by Gail Riplinger. This book will help you to see that God has placed the ultimate Bible dictionary right within the Bible itself. You can get both of these books at http://www.avpublications.com The Websters 1828 is a facimile edition and is very pricey. It's something you'll enjoy later on when money isn't so tight, but I do recommend the book by Gail Riplinger, as well as all here other books, especially her new "In Awe of thy Word".

Much Love in Christ Jesus,
Stephen

I would not recommend Webster's Dictionary to help with the words, because Webster was a King James Bible "corrector". The best source to use for English words is the full Oxford English Dictionary. The OED is the authoritative record of historical English usage.

As for words within the King James Bible itself, it is possible by context and the conference of Scripture with Scripture, to understand the meaning of words. This is because the King James Bible consists of Biblical English, which differs from standard or ordinary English as to its use and meaning, and reveals complexity and accuracy beyond the use of English in any other work or form.

Here is a basic explanation:

1. Every single word in the King James Bible has been rightfully used in each place, every word is exactly in its proper place with the proper meaning.

2. That there is a reason why one original word may be translated differently into English, or whether different original words may be translated with the same English word. The fullest meaning will be found in holding each English word as correct.

3. That there are reasons why a synonym is used, rather than the same English word, e.g. for subtle shades of meaning, for better rhythm, etc.

4. That even a slight difference in an English word has a different meaning or different usage, each being used correctly in its place, e.g. beside and besides, sometime and sometimes, etc.

5. That each word is used according to Biblical English grammar (which is not identical to modern grammar).

6. That each word, set of words, representation of concepts, form a structure, such as a continual alternation, inversion or division of ideas.

7. That each word or phrase may be understood by a provided form of self-definition, which is by reading or understanding the context, as well as the conference of Scripture with Scripture.

8. That one word can have different possible meanings. For example, the word "wine" indicates grape drink, thus, not always meaning that it is alcoholic.

9. That the exact meaning of each word is entirely accurate, being a sign of the divine imprint, not only in the inspiration, but in the superintendence of the Holy Ghost over the transmission and presentation of the Scripture.

10. That the exact presentation of the King James Bible, down to the very letter, most completely gives the best view of this perfection.

Thanks for your explanation, Bible protector!

I hadn't heard this about Webster. I do like the OED as well, but I use the methods you describe in your 10 pt list to define words within the KJB already. Gail's book really does a good job with this. Do you have more info on Webster that coroborates what you said? Just curious because a lot of KJB only brothers (and sisters like Tracy at jesus-is-lord.com and Gail) really like this dictionary.

Much Love in Christ,
Stephen

Here is a quote from my book:

Meanwhile, in America there had been attempts to edit the Bible too. Noah Webster (1758–1843) wrote in his preface to his Revision of the Common Version, “I have attempted to remove, in a good degree, this objection to the version. It was my wish to make some further alterations in this particular; but difficulties occurred which I could not well remove.” This type of attempted alteration of the King James Bible was on a whole other level. Of course, through history, various new versions had come out supposedly rendering some words better, or paraphrased the Scripture. (Even John Wesley committed this error.) And there were also some (presumably on both sides of the Atlantic) who were so prudish (as opposed to chaste), that they thought that the language and content of the King James Bible too racy and vulgar for delicate ears, and so they attempted to sanitise the text. Such persons had much more success with Shakespeare than with the Bible. The Bible is, of course, a moral book, and there is nothing profane about it. The Bible uses “piss”, “bloody” and “bastards” in their proper contexts, and not as vulgarities. Some, like Webster, even disdained the use of “dung”, “womb”, “breasts”, “paps”, “whore”, etc.

But Webster’s notions were leading toward something far more sinister. Webster attempted to Americanise the Bible, and to introduce word changes under the misguided notion of “correcting the grammar” — he was actually changing things into error and such changes were never adopted in Britain. Webster’s version, in particular, was a bold attack on the King James Bible. In his 1833 preface to his revision of the Bible, he claimed that there were errors throughout the Bible, and admitted that his faith was shaken when he could not understand how the Euphrates and the Gihon of Ethiopia could come from a common source according to Genesis 2:10–14. But his solution was simple, he determined that the Bible contained a great mistake here, and accused the ancients of being ignorant of geography, and so took it upon himself to “correct” their error, thereby restoring his “faith”. Yet, he would only have had to read a little further in Genesis to see that there was a worldwide flood, and by this geographical features, such as rivers, could be drastically altered. It was obvious that he did not really believe the Word to begin with, or he would have sought to understand it, instead of change it.

Man, this whole business of changing the Bible (KJB) and all the new age perversions really gets me down sometimes. My heart goes out terribly to those that are totally caught by the hook of these translations. But the most sad thing to me is when a true Bible Believing Christian looses faith in his King James. I wish I could cure the Church of all these issues. If only this was one of those things that commeth out by prayer and fasting. *sigh*

Much Love in Christ Jesus,
Stephen

PS - bibleprotector, is your site down?

It was a public holiday in Australia (or at least in Victoria), so I suppose there was less than usual maintenance by the hosting people at the time. I also have a partial back up website: http://bibleprotector.99k.org

Jordon,

George covered your insincerity well in post#35 of "Some people should realize". Be careful that you have not been betrayed by your decietful and wicked heart. Examine yourself:

1 Corinthians 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

God is the source of our faith. We should always believe God and not men. We should always call upon His name:

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Thou art still in thy youth, I am 64, God has shown me a lot in many years, but it has taken many wacks alongside the head.

Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

The garbage and dirt that you pick up from men will just be a heavier load as you try to grow in the Lord.

My Lord has given us seven children one is with Him now, He was only forty two years old. We do not know how much time Our Father has allotted us:

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

MAKE GOOD USE OF THE TIME HE GIVES YOU! REMEMBER THAT GOD KNOWS YOUR HEART, BE SURE. DO NOY FOLLOW MEN.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

I speak as a mother, knowing the love of (a) The Father for His children.

In Christ Love,
Renee