Originally Posted by sophronismos

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.

Originally Posted by sophronismos

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.

Beth, have you attended Laytonsville Elementary?

Originally Posted by MDOC

Beth, have you attended Laytonsville Elementary?

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

[bibleprotector]

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

For example, he said,

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:

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.

Originally Posted by Beth

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.