Which of the KJVs is the KJB?

[IronWill]

I corrected my error. :saint:

:thumbs::laugh:

 

[Askjo]

:thumbs::laugh:

I mistyped spelling. :type: I apology.

 

[Logos1560]

I think you missed the premise of this poll. It is not to determine which editions are considered KJVs; it is a trap to try and get KJVOs to pick one edition as the King James Bible,

How does this poll attempt to get KJV-only advocates to pick only one edition when there is the choice that anyone can pick "all" and there are the choices where two different editions can be picked?

By the way, the 1762 standard KJV edition was printed by Cambridge while the 1769 standard KJV edition was printed by Oxford. There are at least three present-day Cambridge editions, but none of them are every word the same as the 1762 Cambridge. There is a new 2005 Cambridge edition available. I do not know of any present-day Oxford edition that is every word the same as the 1769 Oxford edition.

 

[robycop3]

You must be joking. The NKJV shouldn't even be associated with the KJB. The NKJV should be call AMV, (another modern version). I used to believe the NKJV was an updated version of the KJB with the Thees and Thous replaced. But I learned that it is just another version based on corrupt manuscripts. I am far from an expert on Bible versions, but I have learned a lot by opening my mind and putting aside my pride.

Well, which KJV is the KJB? They're all different.

 

[robycop3]

No, 2,000+ in the NKJV are 40% non-TR! The NKJV is NOT same as the KJV. Many verses in the NKJV did NOT match with the KJV.

So does that make it right or wrong? Of course not.


Many verses in the KJV don't match the Textus Receptus, which doesn't match the mss from which it was made. Don't think so? just ask any Koine Greek reader who's made those comparisons.

 

[robycop3]

Originally Posted by Pastor_Bob
I think you missed the premise of this poll. It is not to determine which editions are considered KJVs; it is a trap to try and get KJVOs to pick one edition as the King James Bible,

Some KJVOs insist the KJV(B) is absolutely perfect; therefore, for them, there should be only ONE perfect edition. Changing one punctuation mark or one spelling, such as Saviour to Savior, or vice versa, would make that edition imperfect. If those KJVOs cannot name their perfect edition, then it seems their "stance" is a sham.

 

[Keith M]

Pastor Bob said:

I find it interesting that the New American Standard Bible can be called such, but the KJV defenders cannot use the term to describe their Bible.

Anti-Alexandrian said:

Ye olde double standard..

Not a double standard at all, guys! The error is on the part of KJVO folks. They want to change the title to read "King James Bible" when it has never beeen titled as such. The word "Bible" is included as a part of the title New American Standard Bible. Check the title pages. The double standard is on the part of the KJVO folks who want to call the King James Version what it was never called. The KJV is the Bible, but so is the NASB. To say the NASB is not the Bible is to blaspheme the word of God.

 

[Keith M]

NKJV,NIV,NASB,Good news Bible,TNIV,NAS, RSV, NLT and any version from W/H But before the reformation one would not read out of any thing other than the TR.The Bible ought to be the common possession of all Christians, and needs to be made available for common use in the language of the people.But we dont need 100 translations and many Versions only one will do the job! Thorpe ""I indeed clove to none closer than to him, the wisest and most blessed of all men whom I have ever found. From him one could learn in truth what the Church of Christ is and how it should be ruled and led." said about "Doctor evangelicus"

So one version will do the job, huh? But the one version that you guys so boldly advocate was translated nearly 400 years ago. There have been many changes to the English language in the four centuries that have passed. The language has changed so much so that many words have dropped from use or changed in meaning. The idea that one version is all that is necessary is totally absurd because it totally ignores that a living language changes. Therefore, new translations are needed to keep the Bible alive for readers of every generation.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Then what are you going to do with the NASB being FIRST called the ASV??????????? It was first called a VERSION.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Here we go round the mulberry bush.

This thread is going over the same old tired points.


We are on page five - I don't think anyone has discussed which edition if the KJV is THE KJB so I am announcing a closure time of 1400 EDT today.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Here are the near final results of the poll:

Which of the KJVs is the KJB?
this thread has 49 replies and has been viewed 460 times

View Poll Results: Which edition(s) of the King James Versions (KJVs)
1. KJV1611 Edition 3 12.50%
2. KJV1762 Edition (Oxford) 0 0%
3. KJV1769 Edition (Cambridge) 2 8.33%
4. KJV USA Editions 1 4.17%
5. 1&2 0 0%
6. 2&3 1 4.17%
7. 3&4 0 0%
8. 4&5 0 0%
9. all of the above 12 50.00%
10. none of the above, don't know, etc 5 20.83%
Voters: 24.

To improve the poll, i'd like to poll KJVOs only, to see what they
think. Yes, there is a diviersity of thought on this matter among
those KJVO#4 and KJVO#5. We only KJVO#2 folks, like the
MV users probably accept all the KJVs.

In most applications we should use 'KJVs' not 'KJV'.
In most applications we should use 'Received Texts'
not 'Received Text'.

So this poll was a washout. It was probably ruined my non-KJVOs.

 

[Salamander]

UM, the 1762 is the Cambridge, not the Oxford.

It might be best for Bible "scholars" to research their own material before submitting a poll.raying:


raise: :Fish: raise:

 

[Keith M]

Then what are you going to do with the NASB being FIRST called the ASV??????????? It was first called a VERSION.

Better check your "facts" here, AA! You're talking about two separate Bible versions. One is the American Standard Version, the other is the New American Standard Bible. These two translations are different just as the King James Version of 1611, the King James Version of 1769 and the New King James Version are different.

The year 1901 also saw the publication of the American Standard Version. This version was the direct descendant of the English Revised Version of 1881-1885. Because of several differences of opinion during the original translation, American revisers had asked to be relieved of their duties. They promised to wait at least fourteen years before publishing their own version. The American Standard Version was the result. This version followed the preferences of American revisers. It was hailed by some as being the most accurate English Bible version to date. Others immediately looked at the American Standard Version as being an inferior translation because at places it differed with the King James Version. This is apparently one of the major causes of the King James Version Only debate that rages on even today.
- from History of the English Bible copyright 2003-2004 F. Keith Mincey

And...

The New American Standard New Testament was published in 1963. This New Testament was the work of the Lockman Foundation. The New American Standard Bible was published in 1971, with an updated version appearing in 1995. One of the goals of the translators was to build on the waning popularity of the ASV of 1901. The NASB has been highly praised for its accuracy. It maintains a literal word-for-word translation of the original texts, and has at times been accused of being a bit too literal and stiff.
- from History of the Eng;ish Bible copyright 2003-2004 F. Keith Mincey

Two different versions, two different titles, AA. It would probably help if you would check the information before you make such fanciful claims. :laugh:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Here we go round the mulberry bush.

This thread is going over the same old tired points.


We are on page five - I don't think anyone has discussed which edition if the KJV is THE KJB so I am announcing a closure time of 1400 EDT today.

As it is now 1400 EDT - this thread is closed.