Hasn't the KJV been updated in thousands of Places?

[Logos1560]

For the book of Esther, Waite listed no changes.

The examples marked by a "+" are found in Scrivener's appendixes. Some of the other differences may be mentioned in the text of his book. Only the numbered examples were included in my count.

704 +Esther 1:8 for the king (1611) for so the king (present)

705 Esther 1:13 towards (1611) toward (present)

706 Esther 1:19 then she (1611) than she (present)

707 Esther 2:17 then all (1611) than all (present)

+Esther 3:1 Amedatha (1611) Hammedatha (present)

708 +Esther 3:4 Mordecai his matters (1611) Mordecai’s matters (present)

+Esther 3:10 Ammedatha Hammedatha

709 +Esther 4:4 the sackcloth (1611)
his sackcloth (present)

710 Esther 4:13 more then all (1611) more than all (present)

711 Esther 6:6 more then (1611) more than (present)

Waite himself listed the difference between "then" in the 1611 and "than" in the present KJV one time, but he did not list over 400 other times the same change was made between the 1611 and today's KJV. Every time the present Oxford KJV has "than" the 1611 edition had "then."

Waite himself listed the change of "you" in the 1611 to "ye" in the present Oxford KJV around 80 times, but again he overlooked and did not list over 100 times where the same change was made.

 

[Keith M]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
THIS is the question I am asking....not is POSTING false information dishonest, but also RUNNING AWAY after that information is shown to be inaccurate an act of dishonesty? I think it is, I'd like to know what you think.

I do not necessarily think that the scenario you describe is an act of dishonesty. The mere act of "running away" may be a concession, not dishonesty. On the other hand, to continue to produce or defend information shown to be inaccurate would be dishonest, in my opinion.

Here lies my main problem with the majority of KJVO...MANY of them have never sought out the evidence to see if these author are telling the truth.

I would agree with this statement but add that it applies to a certain degree to the non-KJVO as well.

...it appears that you are saying that KJVO should be allowed to post false information, and then not be obligated to set the record straight.

I am not saying this at all. To knowingly post false information is unacceptable. To post information that later is revealed to be false is not dishonesty; hopefully it is a learning experience. There is no need for the poster to "set the record straight" if that has already been accomplished by another. </font>[/QUOTE]Yet the vast majority of those who accept the KJVO myth continue to post the same "proofs" that are shown over and over to be errors. They DO NOT learn from their errors. This is shown to be true right here at BB and at other boards where the error of KJVOism is confronted with truth.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Generic Caveat: I'm called to describe shoes.
If you think the shoe fits, feel free to wear it.
Please don't think that I was talking about you though,
i am talking generalities not specifics.
If the shoe doesn't fit; don't wear it.
Your propensity to judge others is NOT a problem for me.
I hesitate before i name names and judge judgements.


Pastor_Bob: //To knowingly post false
information is unacceptable. To post information that later
is revealed to be false is not dishonesty; hopefully it
is a learning experience. //

You seem to be better at cutting slack than I am.
Your hope seems more than likely highly based on
nothing but your God-given ability to 'cut slack'.

I've listened in on boards where some other board is being
attacked. There is a group of people who are continually
attacking Baptist Board trying to destroy it's witness,
especially it's multiple version ministry. (Caveat: most
KJVO attackers are NOT aware of these groups of attackers,
it is easy to get people to make attacks, if you promise
them 76 virgins - not HONEST, just easy)

The weapons of the BB attackers:

1. The easiest way to bring down BB is to get them in
legal trouble. Even if one 'wins' a legal fight, it is
the lawyers that really win. Defending one's board against
'legal' attacks is allways expensive, too expensive to be worth
the effort. The way to attack is to quote (at length)
without attriubtion.

2. Attackers don't bother to figure out their enemy, they
just attack. Unfortunately, this causes each attacker of BB
to make the same mistakes. FOr example, the defenders of the BB
in the Versions section tend to write their own material (some
may be published elsewhere, but they write their own material);
by constrast attackers copy material freely.
(I don't like this cause I'm not paid enough to debate against
professinal debaters.)

3. Troll: write stuff that is inflamatory and leave.
This term was not originally the kind of troll that lives
under a bridge like in Grimm Brothers tales. It was 'trolling
for a flame'. As in trolling for fish, one draggs a bait
around until someone bites. Here the 'bite' is a flame
post tossed at the troller.

4. ANother easy method is to get the folks there bickering
among themselves and dissipating their energies fighting
phantoms. That reminds me

I have a fistfight scheduled with
Bro. Robocop3 ....

 

[EdSutton]

Originally posted by Logos1560:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robycop3:
Has anyone compared the text of the AV 1611 with that of the Bishop's Bible or the Geneva Bible?

I have not made a complete comparison of the 1611 KJV with the Geneva Bible or the Bishops' Bible, but I have compared many verses in them.
There are the same-type differences between the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and the KJV as there are between the KJV and later English translations of the same underlying texts.

In comparing the Gospel of Matthew in a modern-spelling edition of the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the present KJV edition in the SCOFIELD REFERENCE BIBLE, I counted over 1,900 differences. This count includes the use of different words, different parts of speech, omissions or additions, etc., but does not include any differences in spelling or punctuation. </font>[/QUOTE]Be careful on this when citing "the present KJV edition" in the "SCOFIELD REFERENCE BIBLE". There is also something called "The New Scofield Reference Bible" that had a KJV basis, but some updated word changes in the text. Nothing against it

, and in fact I preferred it

, and used one until it was stolen a few years back.

[And I could not replace the exact version and wide margin edition (1967), not to mention almost 30 years of notes.] Just making the observation that there may, in fact, be a difference .

In His grace,
Ed

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by EdSutton:
Be careful on this when citing "the present KJV edition" in the "SCOFIELD REFERENCE BIBLE". There is also something called "The New Scofield Reference Bible" that had a KJV basis, but some updated word changes in the text. Ed

Yes, I am aware of it and have a copy of the 1967 New Scofield Reference Bible.

In my comparison, I used the regular Oxford KJV edition in the old Scofield, which was the same edition used by D. A. Waite in his comparison.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
DesiderioDomini,
It is unnecessary and unproductive rhetoric such as this that keeps most KJVO from the debate. I certainly understand TheWinDork's desire to avoid an unfruitful conversation.

If every bit of evidence if discounted, what is the use of producing any evidence at all. Perhaps Dr. Waite's research and the study done by Logos1560, although similar, is not the exact same study. For him to say, "Actually, Waite's count is inaccurate," is just throwing the evidence back in TheWinDork's face. Perhaps he could have said, "I have done a similar study and here are the results of my research."

I may be missing something, but I thought that is what was said..?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Phillip,

I concur, and I was very confused. However, I think my sarcasm (a subject like this, and debating people like these would be BORING without a lil wit) was out of taste for Bob.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by Phillip:
I may be missing something, but I thought that is what was said..?

Phillip, if I recall correctly, I emailed you an earlier edition of my file that listed the differences between the 1611 KJV edition and the present Oxford edition that Waite used. If so, can you confirm that list and evidence shows that Waite's count of only 421 was inaccurate since he did not even list one-half of the changes that affect the sound?

 

[Logos1560]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Logos1560:

How far off does Waite's count need to be to be considered inaccurate?

I would say 1 or 2% error could still be considered accurate.

</font>

I noted that Waite's count was inaccurate because he did not list and count even one-half of the actual number of changes of sound. Would you consider being off by over 50% inaccurate?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
DesiderioDomini,
It is unnecessary and unproductive rhetoric such as this that keeps most KJVO from the debate. I certainly understand TheWinDork's desire to avoid an unfruitful conversation.

If every bit of evidence if discounted, what is the use of producing any evidence at all. Perhaps Dr. Waite's research and the study done by Logos1560, although similar, is not the exact same study. For him to say, "Actually, Waite's count is inaccurate," is just throwing the evidence back in TheWinDork's face. Perhaps he could have said, "I have done a similar study and here are the results of my research."

I may be missing something, but I thought that is what was said..? </font>[/QUOTE]Phillip, my point was that a less caustic approach would have been to simply mentioned his research and findings without demeaning Waite. By doing so, he could have kept TheWinDork in the debate instead of throwing his resource back in his face.

Isn't that the goal here, to have a kinder gentler forum?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
Phillip,

I concur, and I was very confused. However, I think my sarcasm...was out of taste for Bob.

Quite the contrary. I think that this sarcasm was unnecessary and counter-productive this time. Sarcasm has its place in the debate, but this time it was out of place.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Originally posted by Logos1560:
Would you consider being off by over 50% inaccurate?

Obviously

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Bob,

Would you notice that my sarcasm came only AFTER Windork stated he would not engage in any debate?

Please read his post again, and then explain to me how my sarcasm pushed him out, when he already said he would not discuss this issue.

This is my problem, when someone posts inaccurate information, then even when someone gently corrects them, as Logos did, they still just walk out. Its dishonest. He didnt like that someone actually corrected his error, so he "took his ball and went home". Its simple, really.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

This indicative of the approach that is used many times in the textual debate. In my opinion, that is why the KJVOs do not stick around. I do not know TheWinDork, therefore I cannot begin to speak for his motivation for leaving. I can say that I would not continue a discussion that drew responses as did his. When such responses are offered, the level of the conversation drops below that which I desire to maintain. My choice would then be to withdraw.

 

[TheWinDork]

Originally posted by Pastor_Bob:
This indicative of the approach that is used many times in the textual debate. In my opinion, that is why the KJVOs do not stick around. I do not know TheWinDork, therefore I cannot begin to speak for his motivation for leaving. I can say that I would not continue a discussion that drew responses as did his. When such responses are offered, the level of the conversation drops below that which I desire to maintain. My choice would then be to withdraw.

Well, I'm just gonna tell it like it is, and if it causes someone to get thier dad-blasted undies in stinkin' knot, well, I guess it's just too dang bad... The King James Version *IS* the Preserved Word of God, You [personal attack deleted] have systematically tried to discredit the KJV and it's Godly Doctrines... As far as I'm concerned, ANYONE who tries to discredit the King James Version, deserves the Hottest part of Devil's Hell, But because I don't wish to banned from this board... I'll leave that alone. I've used KJV since the day I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour in 1982 and I did use the other versions at one point and because I felt like I was only reading PART of the Word. I went back to the KJV... Yes, I've done the research, Yes, I've read the arguments by people like James Waite and others, the Critics are simply Unbelievers in Christ, Wolfs in Sheeps clothing, No, I'm not a Ruckmanite, as he is a deciever and a Liar... and a hyper-dispensaionalist... But I believe in the KJV and I use it and I'm pretty darn proud of it!!!! So, you people can say whatever the heck you want. But I am a KJV reader and I will defend it till the day I DIE and Meet Jesus Face to face!!

As The leader of the National Riflemans Association Said so greatly..... "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!"

and with that, I'm back to lurkin'... I've had enough of this stupidity and unbelief.

TheWinDork

[ May 01, 2006, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[rbell]

I feel privileged...I got to read Windork's diatribe before it got deleted.

Thanks for the belly laugh.

 

[TheWinDork]

Originally posted by rbell:
I feel privileged...I got to read Windork's diatribe before it got deleted.

Thanks for the belly laugh.

Just further prooves to me what sort of person you really are... [personal attack deleted]

Good day!

The WinDork

[ May 01, 2006, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[rbell]

Have a good one.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by TheWinDork:
Well, I'm just gonna tell it like it is, and if it causes someone to get thier dad-blasted undies in stinkin' knot, well, I guess it's just too dang bad...

Tell it "like it is"... According to who? All I saw in your following words were "thus saith Windork... not thus saith the Lord."

The King James Version *IS* the Preserved Word of God,

That is an assumption by you... not a fact. It is an assumption that is neither found in nor supported by the Bible. I know you don't like hearing that but truth hurts when you have so much invested in a lie.

You unbelieving jack legs will one day stand before an HOLY and RIGHTEOUS GOD and Give account of how you Alexanderian Cultists have systematically tried to discredit the KJV

Only if God said somewhere in the Bible that it is wrong to consider whether a 16th century Catholic and 17th century Anglicans were perfect in their textual criticism and language translation.

BTW, if you are going to claim that God will judge us for not accepting KJVOnlyism then you need to provide a scriptural basis. Otherwise, you are guilty of adding to scripture and speaking (prophesying) where God has not... a very gross sin.

and it's Godly Doctrines...

I use the KJV. It along with the NASB, NKJV, and several others I reference support the very same fundamental doctrines. Doctrines that can only be derived from one version should be viewed with caution- not certainty as it once again puts you in a position to presume agaisnt God.

As far as I'm concerned, ANYONE who tries to discredit the King James Version, deserves the Hottest part of Devil's Hell,

Where did God make criticism of the KJV a sin... much less an unforgiveable one? Chapter and verse please.... or are we again dealing in "thus saith Windork?"

I've used KJV since the day I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour in 1982 and I did use the other versions at one point and because I felt like I was only reading PART of the Word.

"Felt" like? Since when are your feelings authoritative concerning doctrine? Doctrine comes from the facts laid out in scripture... not your "feelings".

I went back to the KJV... Yes, I've done the research, Yes, I've read the arguments by people like James Waite

I sincerely doubt it since you only named one critic of KJVOnlyism (notice not of the KJV itself) and didn't even name him correctly. The man's name is James White.

and others, the Critics are simply Unbelievers in Christ,

Prove it by scripture or else repent. You are adding a requirement for salvation that is to be found no where in the Bible... that is a quite grievious sin.

But I believe in the KJV and I use it

As do I... but I am not foolish enough to believe that it has no human flaws or weaknesses since it is the product of human scholars. Providentially moved? Yes, I would say so- but not directly inspired or superintended. But that would apply to several other versions as well.

The KJV is an excellent version. It is accurate in what it teaches. It is not word for word perfect.

and I'm pretty darn proud of it!!!!

"Darn" is a substitute for a particular curse word... and pride in things not of God (ie KJVOnlyism) is sin.

Interesting confession though. Yes. I would say that pride has a whole lot to do with why you believe KJVOnlyism.

So, you people can say whatever the heck you want.

"Heck" is another substitute for a common curse.... and yes, some of us will oppose the divisive error of KJVOnlyism as we are scripturally commanded to do.

But I am a KJV reader

As am I.

and I will defend it till the day I DIE and Meet Jesus Face to face!!

I will defend my children... but I will not make an a priori assumption that they are perfect.

and with that, I'm back to lurkin'... I've had enough of this stupidity and unbelief.

TheWinDork

You have had enough of stupidity and unbelief? Good. Hopefully that means you've abandoned your false, unbiblical doctrine about Bible versions.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This thread is terribly off topic - the topic is about revisions to the KJV.

If it does not return to topic in the next few hours it will be closed.

Here we have a classic example of how good threads go bad. One poster casts out comments that are not in compliance with the rules, and rather that reporting it, others respond in kind. A sure fire way to see a thread closed.