What does your KJV say?

Why should I use the 1769? Why not my 1762? Or my 1883? Or my 1611 1st edition 1st printing? If I can only use my 1769, doesn't that negate the entire purpose of your poll? If only the 1769 is used won't all respondents report exactly the same thing?

 

Which one?

 

About 8 or 9 years ago the pastor of my Church preached on 2 Peter 2:6 which reads, “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly”

He preached hard on MV’s that change ensample to example. He emphasized how ensample has a deeper meaning than that of example, and how all other translations are corrupt.

Afterward I went to him with my KJV in hand and showed him what my verse said, “example”. This puzzled him then he said he didn’t really understand and thought I must have a corrupt KJV!

I have three KJV’s that say ensample. I have one that says, example. To the best of my understanding they are all 1769’s.

 

Chet said:

He preached hard on MV's that change ensample to example. He emphasized how ensample has a deeper meaning than that of example, and how all other translations are corrupt.

He was being silly. "Ensample" is simply an obsolete form of "example." Nothing more.

 

There was, originally, a difference between "ensample" and "example." The difference is in the prefix. The "ensample" was the exemplar or pattern which was used to cut out the "exsample." The "ensample" put into the copy its shape (en = in), and the "exsample" took out of the copy its shape (ex = out).

However, today, example serves both functions. The "example" can be what you want to copy, or what you have copied. Today they are the same word and "example" is just as correct as "ensample" and much more in keeping with modern usage.

 

Why not REREAD instead of REWRITE.!? Are you trying to say these are printing errors?

 

The sky is falling!!

 

Who are you addressing?

 

Those differences in the poll are differences in spelling and not at all doctrinal.They don't change the meaning of the text at all.Anytime a passage of scripture is quoted in the New Testament from the Old Testament, certain word changes occur but God inspired both. The 'revisions' you are pointing out are silly

 

In other words, things different can be the same. Right?

 

Thank you for saying this because it is what we have been saying about the MVs from day one. It is nice to have someone who recognizes that absolute identity is not the test of the text necessarily.

 

If you have a KJV Bible that has the word "example" used in a place where the word "ensample" originally was used (such as in I Peter 5:3), then you have a corrupted KJV. This is done through fraud and deceit.

Years ago there was a Bible called "The Open Bible." It was a KJV study Bible that introduced what they called "spelling changes" in the text but they were actually "word changes." Well, several years later, The American Bible Society and Thomas Nelson Publishers began putting these so-called "spelling changes" into the text of the King James Bible without telling anybody about it. That is fraud and deceit.

[ September 21, 2002, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Pioneer ]

 

Pioneer, by your logic almost every Bible publisher on the planet is practising fraud and deceit, because 95% of the KJV's being sold are not the original 1611. They are almost always a later revision which includes corrections and updated spelling, and they are almost never labeled to indicate that. You are very quick to ascribe devious motives to people...

Eric

[ September 21, 2002, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: eric_b ]