Which KJV is perfect?

Peddling is an incorrect word on this verse. [/b]</font>[/QUOTE]Better look again. "
Corrupting (kapêleuontes). Old word from kapêlos, a huckster or peddlar, common in all stages of Greek for huckstering or trading. It is curious how hucksters were suspected of corrupting by putting the best fruit on top of the basket. Note Paul's solemn view of his relation to God as a preacher (from God ek theou, in the sight of God katenanti theou, in Christ en Christôi). (RWP)

 

Some mistakes are in the KJV by the printing such as incorrect spelling. The printers were being human. </font>[/QUOTE]So did God preserve some mistakes until man corrected them? Sounds like Ruckmanism in reverse.

 

Neither askjo, it's an alternative translation to the word kapeleuo.

HankD

 

David, you KNOW that won't be the right answer. The older edition and closest to the original manuscripts (from which the 1611 Edition #1 were typeset and are gone today) CANNOT be best. Only those hundreds of years later can be trusted.

I hear that argument from the KJVonly sect all the time. "Just because its oldest and closest to the original doesn't mean its best". </font>[/QUOTE]Which is why I asked before, what if there were a new edition of the KJV that fixes the archaic language? What if it is Authorized by the King or Queen? Logically, if they were consistent, they would accept the new edition the way they have accepted every doctrinal and word change in the KJV editions since 1611. The KJV 2010 would be given the same unthinking acceptance that is given to those of the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s.

 

David, you KNOW that won't be the right answer. The older edition and closest to the original manuscripts (from which the 1611 Edition #1 were typeset and are gone today) CANNOT be best. Only those hundreds of years later can be trusted.

I hear that argument from the KJVonly sect all the time. "Just because its oldest and closest to the original doesn't mean its best". </font>[/QUOTE]You guys just don't pay attention. Didn't you see Ed's post of Chick's publication.

Just read it and you will find your answer.

Guards were posted at the tables to keep the translators from sneaking that dirty ole Vaticanus into the Bible. (I wonder if they were trained any better than some of the security guards I know.)

I'm just amazed that you people here just don't pay attention.

Oooops! Time for church, see you guys and gals later! Gotta Ruunnnnnnnnnnn...........

 

I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find many examples of double applications of prophecy.

 

Yes, like Isa 7:14 and many others. However, ALL these examples have BOTH applications explained in scripture. Deriving our own secondary interpretations of scripture without scripture giving us these interpretations is "private interpretation", which scripture speaks against.

 

I BELIEVE THEY ARE ALL PERFECT JUST SLIGHT CHANGES SUCH AS PRINTING ERRORS, SPELLING STANDARDAZATION, ETC HAVE BEEN SINCE MADE

 

Your opinion or belief is contrary to the known evidence. The evidence indicates that several of the 1611 renderings that later editors changed were actually the responsibility of the KJV translators themselves as they kept the earlier rendering of the Bishops' Bible.

Six words were added to one verse in the 1611 (Eccl. 8:17), three words were added to nine verses, two words were added to twelve verses,
one word was added to many verses, and one word was omitted from several verses. The number [singular/plural] of over 40 words was changed.

 

If perfect Bibles have errors, how can you limit it to one translation?

All translations have errors. How do you decide which one is perfect? </font>[/QUOTE]Tee Hee. Good question, Brother C4K.

The answer: You would have to put the various
KJVs next to each other and perform textual
criticism, the process of discerning which
reading is correct. Oh, i forgot, some
DEEP KJVOs (not all KJVOs of which I am
one) teach that "textual criticism" is a sin,
even though the translators of the original
KJV1611 Edition used AND DOCUMENTED IN THE
TRANSLATOR FOOTNOTES textual criticism.

 

AV1611PREACHER: I BELIEVE THEY ARE ALL PERFECT JUST SLIGHT CHANGES SUCH AS PRINTING ERRORS, SPELLING STANDARDAZATION, ETC HAVE BEEN SINCE MADE

Really?

Then, howdya explain such PROVEN ERRORS in the KJV as "Easter" in Acts 12:4, "slew and hanged" in Acts 5:30, or "my sore ran" in Psalm 77:2, as posted by Logos in another thread entitled"Ps.77:2"? And howdya 'splain away the evidence Logos & C4K just presented above?

Yes, I believe the KJV is as valid an English BV as any other, but not the ONLY valid one.