AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Versions (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   "Sword Bible" KJV- Easy Reading ed. (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211)

Renee 05-01-2008 03:24 AM

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.


Eversince the beginning men has changed the word of God. The devil has been encouraging us eversince. There are 200+ people on this forum, only 200!!!! and we cannot all agree. We have the mind of Christ (and yet the devil has corrupted our minds).

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.


12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

I for one would not want to change one word, one jot, one tittle of the KJB.
The King James Bible is The Bible, not a version.

In Defense of God's Word.
Renee

bibleprotector 05-01-2008 05:14 AM

Quote:

2Sa 24:14
(14) And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.

1Ch 21:13
(13) And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall now into the hand of the LORD; for very great are his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man.

Notice anything different about this set of refs?
Distinctions in the inspiration are quite apart from differences being made by unauthorised revision and neo-modernisation of the Word of God today. Every word in every place in the KJB is correct: the words in parallel passages are correct at their own places. (Parallel passages are either actually of two separate things/events, or consist of complementary information.)

Also, where the translators differed the English word even when the same original word appeared is another issue again. For example, if they were to render the same word "joy" in one place and "gladness" in another. That is because the sense is being exactly presented in English. Reasons for the correctness includes the sound and rhythm, the subtleties of association, so that at one place a person may beg, at another ask, at another demand, and at another require and at another crave.

As for alterations of lettering through the history of the King James Bible, the question I may ask is, should it be "he went" or "she went" in Ruth 3:15, and why?

bibleprotector 05-01-2008 05:27 AM

George said,

Quote:

Without knowing what you found out through hard study, we ended up with the very best there is - Praise God!
You know God has provided millions of copies of the King James Bible, and millions of copies of the Pure Cambridge Edition.

Praise GOD indeed that we have His pure Word today, and that it is not lost or unknown!

I am not the sole repository of the pure Word (unlike the false accusation of a certain gainsayer).

Connie 05-01-2008 09:25 AM

Quote:

I for one would not want to change one word, one jot, one tittle of the KJB.
Isn't that sophistry or humanism according to your husband, Renee? Seems to me he and Diligent both accused me of that when I dared to give my personal opinion about how the Bible should be dealt with.

Beth 05-01-2008 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connie (Post 3879)
Isn't that sophistry or humanism according to your husband, Renee? Seems to me he and Diligent both accused me of that when I dared to give my personal opinion about how the Bible should be dealt with.

I really didn't want to get involved in this, but Connie that is a ridiculous statement. How is not wanting to change the written Word's of God studied by true believers for over 400 years humanistic compared with those that want to change the word of God to fit their own needs. as in wanting words changed so that they personally can understand it better without having to take a little extra time in study? or maybe so that it flows better for them. We have so many changes based on every whim of man that we now have what over 90 English translations of the Bible? I'm not sure how many we have, corrections on my number are welcomed. Those that prefer "street language" now have "word of the street" Those that are new age have the message......it goes on and on. All based on the preference of man. The goal of the KJB translators was to have an English translation as close to the original languages as possible. It was not based on their personal wants. and if we prefer to change the Words now it is based on our personal wants.

Renee 05-01-2008 02:51 PM

Nice to "see" you Beth.

You know there are some people on this forum who not only have heard heads but hard hearts.
Mark 6:52 For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened.
John 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Renee 05-01-2008 02:58 PM

Connie,

The shoe must fit if you take what I say personally. I notice you only chose to respond to my personal opinion.

Oh well like others have said you aren't worth the time you take up on this forum. How is that for personal? Now I'm sounding as bad as you. OK enough of this catty woman stuff. I'll try not to do it again.

Renee 05-01-2008 02:59 PM

Diligent

I may have gotten out of line there. Call me down if you deem necessary.

Aloha
Renee

sophronismos 05-01-2008 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 3859)
As Brandon points out, whatever Sophro is accusing me of is quite outside what I believe and have written.

I believe that the King James Bible itself was not made by inspiration, but that it is the inspired Word.

I believe that we have access to a purified form of the King James Bible, where all the typographical errors, spelling variations and so on have been made right.

I believe that none of the jots and tittles of Scripture have failed in English, and that “jot” and “tittle” are English words (just look up the Oxford English Dictionary) applying to the English Bible.



This is a gross misrepresentation. Of course the presentation has been altered historically, so that it is pure now. Just not every time it says "divers" should it be made "diverse", etc., etc., because they always were two different words. The 1611 Edition was actually meaning what we can see today. There are reasons for why the 1611 seemed to have got it wrong, such as that the printers made a mistake, or that both spellings were acceptable for the word/s where separate spellings are used and known today. (Used and known by at least a few today.)

Prove that divers and diverse are different words. What's the difference in meaning? Again, I challenge you to show wherein throughly and thoroughly differ! If you are going to base an entire religion around making sure that your Bible say throughly rather than thoroughly, then you ought to be able to give a reason of the obstinancy that is in you. (I couldn't say 'hope' since it isn't hope.) But you ignore this very thing because you know you would be taking up an impossible task. You know very well that you are wrong and that divers and diverse are the same word and throughly and thoroughly are the same word, but to admit it would be to abdicate your papal throne.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 3859)
There are many examples of so-called synonyms which have two differing though similar meanings, such as alway and always, example and ensample, beside and besides, vail and veil, among and amongst, etc., etc. Every word as it now appears in the KJB is exactly right in its exact place with its exact meaning.

Oh my! Are you smoking crack? Vail and veil are different words now? What kind of crazy religion of sacred insanity are you creating for yourself? Everyone knows that vail and veil are just two different spellings of one word! You perhaps (I will give you the benefit of the doubt) are confusing vail with vale. Yes, vale means valley while vail means veil. Perhaps you were confusing vail and vale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 3859)
If it doesn't really matter about these different words with different jots and tittles, then it is only one more step to accept both "he" and "she" as being correct at the same place (at Ruth 3:15), and not much further (not farther) to believe that black is white and white is black. The madness is not with those who believe that God has presented His word exactly to the Church today.

You shoot yourself in the foot here. Since KJVs differ on "he" and "she" in Ruth 3:15, how are we going to determine which is right without the Hebrew text which you despise as replaced by the KJV wholly and as being a corrupt offscouring? We cannot. Without the Hebrew text we are forever in doubt as to whether it is "he" or "she" there. Sure, we could take your word for it that you have the pure Cambridge edition. But who says the Cambridge edition is the pure one to begin with? You. But why should I beleive you? I have no reason to. In fact, quite to the contrary I have every reason to doubt a man who is so insane as to try and make throughly and thoroughly, divers and diverse, vail and veil out to be different words and have different meanings (and who yet as an indignant obstinate dunce refuses to show wherein they differ!!!)!!!

MDOC 05-01-2008 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sophronismos (Post 3906)
You shoot yourself in the foot here. Since KJVs differ on "he" and "she" in Ruth 3:15, how are we going to determine which is right without the Hebrew text which you despise as replaced by the KJV wholly and as being a corrupt offscouring? We cannot. Without the Hebrew text we are forever in doubt as to whether it is "he" or "she" there. Sure, we could take your word for it that you have the pure Cambridge edition. But who says the Cambridge edition is the pure one to begin with? You. But why should I beleive you? I have no reason to. In fact, quite to the contrary I have every reason to doubt a man who is so insane as to try and make throughly and thoroughly, divers and diverse, vail and veil out to be different words and have different meanings (and who yet as an indignant obstinate dunce refuses to show wherein they differ!!!)!!!

No. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary in the OT has the answer.

sophronismos 05-01-2008 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDOC (Post 3917)
No. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary in the OT has the answer.

Is it based on a tradition of which Cambridge KJV is the pure Cambridge? Somehow I doubt it. So where do Keil & Delitzsch get their answer? From the Hebrew text? I don't know, but I suppose you do. I also suppose you were being sarcastic like that would be Bibleprotector's way of getting around having to go to the Hebrew, he would go to Keil & Delitzsch. Very clever.

Connie 05-01-2008 08:44 PM

That's OK. This site isn't worth my time anyway.

MDOC 05-01-2008 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sophronismos (Post 3921)
Is it based on a tradition of which Cambridge KJV is the pure Cambridge? Somehow I doubt it. So where do Keil & Delitzsch get their answer? From the Hebrew text? I don't know, but I suppose you do. I also suppose you were being sarcastic like that would be Bibleprotector's way of getting around having to go to the Hebrew, he would go to Keil & Delitzsch. Very clever.

You are presumptuous. I was not being sarcastic.

It comes from partly Hebrew, partly exegesis, partly an external reference. The answer is they both "went", not just "she," because the barley was too heavy and too much for her to carry alone. The external reference used conjecture to arrive at a unit of measure which is not given in scripture ref, but it could be valid.

MDOC 05-01-2008 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connie (Post 3922)
That's OK. This site isn't worth my time anyway.

I'm arriving at the same conclusion myself.

Connie 05-01-2008 09:05 PM

I'm back just to try to explain what I meant, which obviously went over your head, Renee. And Beth's. Your husband (and your son in law too I believe) accused me of being a humanist because I dared to express my opinion about the Bible as a personal one, so it only seems fair that he apply the same judgment to your also expressing your opinion about the Bible in personal terms.

Beth of course believes that because my personal opinion is that some changes are in order I'm a humanist, while since your personal opinion is in favor of the status quo you are exempt from the charge. That's not what was said by George, however, what he said was that putting it in personal terms was my offense.

Goodbye.

sophronismos 05-01-2008 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connie (Post 3925)
I'm back just to try to explain what I meant, which obviously went over your head, Renee. And Beth's. Your husband (and your son in law too I believe) accused me of being a humanist because I dared to express my opinion about the Bible as a personal one, so it only seems fair that he apply the same judgment to your also expressing your opinion about the Bible in personal terms.

Beth of course believes that because my personal opinion is that some changes are in order I'm a humanist, while since your personal opinion is in favor of the status quo you are exempt from the charge. That's not what was said by George, however, what he said was that putting it in personal terms was my offense.

Goodbye.

The Greek text that the King James Version translated was printed by humanists (not in the modern sense of humanist, of course) like Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, so consider it a compliment that people who trust in some unnamed committee of men that revised the text of the KJV in the around 1900 and came up with the "pure Cambridge text" which these wise acres say is alone perfect and inspired of God, and yet they name their forum AV1611 when they see the 1611 as being as corrupt as the NIV itself and only accept the very modern "pure Cambridge text."

Connie 05-02-2008 12:24 AM

Thanks. Yes, there are ironies here. It's just so sad that Christians remain so isolated in their own doctrinal camps, but it seems to be the case that people get dug into a point of view and that's that -- counting myself of course. That's bad enough but then to get called a humanist (in the sense of "secular" humanist, sophist and so on) because you differ does take it to an even more depressing level.

Beth 05-02-2008 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sophronismos (Post 3926)
of the KJV in the around 1900 and came up with the "pure Cambridge text" which these wise acres say is alone perfect and inspired of God, and yet they name their forum AV1611 when they see the 1611 as being as corrupt as the NIV itself and only accept the very modern "pure Cambridge text."

Please back up your accusation. Could you give a quote of someone on this board saying such a thing?

Please be careful with false accusations. It looks as though you are just trying to cause problems, like some others on this forum that later cry "victim"

sophronismos 05-02-2008 02:33 PM

Bibleprotectos say so. He says that if your Bible says thoroughly rather than throughly that you are a bible corrector. He claims they are different words. Yet he still refuses to explain wherein they differ, because he is a liar and knows they are the same word, but cannot admit it because then his claims that his pure Cambridge is so much better than other 1769 KJVs would fall to the ground.

jerry 05-02-2008 03:51 PM

sophronismos, why are you here? To defend the KJV? To show some flaws in people's defense of it? You would have more impact in those intentions if you stopped with the insults and mockings? I have no problem with SOME of the issues you are stating (ie. I may agree with what you are saying), but it is hard to accept posts that are continually slamming others on these boards - and building straw men. Forget the Ad hominen (however you spell that) attacks, and deal with the issues. (And no, I am not against exposing someone's sins and bad attitudes - if that is relevant in some way to the issue being discussed - but calling someone names when that has nothing to do with what they have posted, is not helping your cause - whatever it may be.)

Beth 05-02-2008 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sophronismos (Post 3962)
Bibleprotectos say so. He says that if your Bible says thoroughly rather than throughly that you are a bible corrector. He claims they are different words. Yet he still refuses to explain wherein they differ, because he is a liar and knows they are the same word, but cannot admit it because then his claims that his pure Cambridge is so much better than other 1769 KJVs would fall to the ground.

That's interesting.... not

except this is the false accusation you made that I asked you to back up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sophronismos (Post 3926)
the KJV in the around 1900 and came up with the "pure Cambridge text" which these wise acres say is alone perfect and inspired of God, and yet they name their forum AV1611 when they see the 1611 as being as corrupt as the NIV itself and only accept the very modern "pure Cambridge text."

btw, this is Diligents discussion forum and I believe he is the one that named the site and forum AV1611.

MDOC 05-02-2008 04:59 PM

Beth, have you attended Laytonsville Elementary?

Beth 05-02-2008 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDOC (Post 3981)
Beth, have you attended Laytonsville Elementary?

Sorry, I don't get it. wouldn't be the first time!

bibleprotector 05-02-2008 11:47 PM

I hope no one is taking their information about me from Sophro.

For example, he said,

Quote:

He says that if your Bible says thoroughly rather than throughly that you are a bible corrector.
I have never said this or anything like it. I have, however, said that "throughly" and "thoroughly" do have distinct meanings to each other.

Divers and Diverse
The word “divers”, meaning differing, always applies to plural things, for example, seeds, weights, measures, colours, kinds, sorts or diseases. The word “diverse” means different, and is singular, for example, “And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, (the vessels being diverse one from another,) and royal wine in abundance, according to the state of the king.” (Esther 1:7). This shows the accuracy in the word forms in the King James Bible that is not present in modern versions.

Other things have already been discussed before at http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?page=4&t=104

My post #34, 14 March 2008:

Quote:

There is a bit of a background to things like the "Afterward" and "Afterwards" difference.
1. This is really dealing with some accusations concerning the words in the KJB made by people who are against the perfection of the KJB who are looking for so-called inconsistencies.
2. This is also dealing with the area of inadequate definitions as have thought to have been proper, which are in fact lacking, though not wrong, but requiring further study, detail and access to proper sources of the tradition of Bible English word-definition.

Accusation: That the words since 1611 have not been altered consistently where they have been altered, because words like "sith" were changed to "since" but not in every place, and that this is an oversight of the editors.

Answer: This is not the truth. What we find in 1611 that there is some flexibility, as we may note in the way they printed "Spirit" or "spirit", and many other such words, but the intended meaning is most accurately seen now because of these minute distinctions, as in the case of "sith", while its meaning is very similar to "since", they are not identical.

Accusation: That some words were used interchangeable in 1611, and therefore have no meaning difference, or should be uniformly one way or the other today, such as "Afterward" and "Afterwards".

Answer: This is not the full story. While to some degree spelling or presentation of words has appeared to be sometimes interchangeable, on closer examination of the Scripture, such as with "afterward" and "afterwards", in conjunction with examination of various sources, such as, Wright's Bible Word Book, Johnson's Dictionary, the full Oxford English Dictionary, etc., we find that there are distinctions.

Afterward and Afterwards: Afterward has a wide amount of meanings, including, in time following, subsequently, whereas afterwards means at a later time, subsequently. Thus, afterward may involve something which is a process, but afterwards some specific thing.

“Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.” (Hebrews 12:11).

“How long will it be ere ye make an end of words? mark, and afterwards we will speak.” (Job 18:2).

Accusation: The spelling of some words is still inconsistent, like "vail" and "veil", or else we have old terms which could easily be changed, like, "alway" to "always".

Answer: In these examples the different "spellings" indicate different meanings. E.g. a "vail" is a cloth which covers, a "veil" is generally a covering, but is always used meaning where the power of it to keep something is taken away, causing something to be revealed.

Alway and Always: The word “always” means “at every time” and “on every occasion”. Whereas the word “alway” means “all the time” and “perpetually”. For example, Jesus said, “lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:20b). Yet He also said, “but me ye have not always.” (John 12:8b). This is not a contradiction, since John is describing Jesus’ personal physical presence. Even though Jesus is not “always” on Earth by His own physical person, yet He is “alway” with His people on the Earth by the Holy Ghost. (Further note: Jesus did not have an omni-body, but was at one locale at any one time during His earthly ministry, e.g. in the garden praying, kissed by Judas, taken by the mob.)

Now, there are simplistic definitions of things, for example, "Afore" is said to simply mean "before". However, if that alone were true, then we would wonder why the translators chose before or afore, if they were completely synonymous, after all, both words appear in the KJB. Therefore, there are reasons why each word is used in each place. Maybe it is to do with the rhythm of the reading and how those sounds fit in with the sentence, but on examination, the word "afore" has a meaning which is different to "before". "Before" has a wide amount of meanings, including "in front of", but "afore" is restricted to mean "In time foregone or past."

Therefore, it would be better to define more accurately the “hard” words of the King James Bible, than to just say that one word equals another, where it actually doesn’t.

I believe that every word is right, and every letter and punctuation mark, and that we must see particularly why it is so rather than to think that either it doesn't matter or that it is just random.

MDOC 05-02-2008 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beth (Post 4005)
Sorry, I don't get it. wouldn't be the first time!

That's OK. You'd have gotten it if you'd recognized it... I was there.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, 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