[Renee]

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]

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]

George said,

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).

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.

Originally Posted by Connie

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]

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]

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]

Diligent

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

Aloha
Renee

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

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.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

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.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

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!!!)!!!

Originally Posted by sophronismos

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.