Chapters and Verses

[Salty]

This is a question for KJO - Many will state we must go by the originals - only. Then if so, why would you not insist in refusing to use chapter and verse divisions - since they did not come into use until the 15oo's.

Not a facetious question - just thinking consistency.

 

[Rippon]

This is a question for KJO - Many will state we must go by the originals - only. Then if so, why would you not insist in refusing to use chapter and verse divisions - since they did not come into use until the 15oo's.

Not a facetious question - just thinking consistency.

Chapter divisions were made about 1227 by Stephen langton. Verse divisions in the O.T.were made by a Jewish rabbi in 1448. Stephanus made verse divisions for the N.T.in 1555.

A number,not all,of KJVO's don't want to talk about the originals at all. As far as they are concerned the KJV is the original. I know at least question is :What particular KJV?

 

[R. Lawson]

Rippon,

I recall Michael Patton from the Theology Program saying that there were many versions of chapters and verses. One example was Matthew having 70 different chapter divisions.

Is this true?:wavey:

 

[franklinmonroe]

... One example was Matthew having 70 different chapter divisions.

Is this true?

(Sorry, I'm not Rippon) but it is true. Many ancient manuscripts exibit various divisions of the scriptures; those are handwritten documents, not complete printed texts though.

Most printed Bibles have be rather consistent since the late 16th century. Although, I own a 1947 Swann New Testament with text numbered (just 'verses', no chapters) consecutively from Matthew to Revelation (his 'verses' average about 4 times the length of our standard verses). For example, verse 1378 begins "All scripture is God-breathed,..." (2 Tim 3:16).

 

[mets65]

I think its just much easier to reference. Its not a bad thing if verses are another way, its just not pratical.

 

[Salty]

I think its just much easier to reference. Its not a bad thing if verses are another way, its just not pratical.

That is not the question - in fact the question is only for KJO's.

If it was not in the orginials - and therefore not inspired - why do you allow it in the KJV -(regardliss of edition)

 

[mets65]

A KJO will say the KJV was inspired that way. Are there many KJO here?