A Blatant Disregard for the Clear Teachings of the Scriptures

I gotta say you lost me on that one. Please explain.

How is saying that the KJV translators picked one of two possible tranlations of a word denouncing the KJV?

 

Recommend you read the King James Bible in
the original version (instead of the
KJV1769 or KJV1873)

I.Corinthians XI:15 (KJV1611):

But if a woman haue long haire,
it is a glory to her: for her haire is giuen
her for a || couering.

sidenote: || Or, vaile.

So, according to the 50 blessed translators
of the King James Version of 1611 (missing
in most modern versions of the KJV) this is
the second best translation:

I.Corinthians XI:15 (KJV1611):

But if a woman haue long haire,
it is a glory to her: for her haire is giuen
her for a vaile.

I read this to say that a woman with her
long hair already has on a veil. Therefor
it is unnecessary for a woman with long hair
and already veiled thereby to futher have
to add a cloth hair covering. However, if
they do, no problem with me.

 

Pioneer, your inability to follow the discussion is evident by your whining about it to another forum.

I gave all the reasons to believe what I do. I posted the original word and its root. Your problem is realizing that KJVO is bankrupt theology.

 

Edifier,
Thank you for typing that out. I am wondering what verse six says in the 1611 version. Would you be so kind as to share that one as well? Thank you.

 

I.Corinthians XI:6 (KJV1611);

For if the woman be not couered,
let her also bee shorne: but if it bee a
shame for a woman to be shorne or shauen,
let her be couered.

 

This is a virtual duplication of a thread already in progress in another forum, and it smacks of an attempt to circumvent BB rules. It is closed.