Its possible to be more saved than someone else depending on your bible version?
Define superior there.
Battle Royale XIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Its possible to be more saved than someone else depending on your bible version?
Define superior there.
For 1611 years God was able to preserve His Word without a complete printed translation that anyone could hold in their hands then, all of a sudden, Poof, God decides to give us this perfect KJB? No, God didn't need a perfect printed translation of His Word to preserve it before the KJB and He doesn't need a perfect printed translation after the KJB to preserve it. We can discover God's Inspired Word today, the same way they were able to discover God's Inspired Word before 1611.
brandplucked
New member
Will Duffy's Bogus List of Changes in the KJB
Will Duffy's Bogus List of Changes in the KJB
Will Duffy's Bogus List of Changes in the King James Bible
Will Duffy, who himself does not even belief his own NKJV that he "uses" is the complete and inerrant words of God, posted this list of what he says are textual changes made in the King James Bible. I will first post the list, and then address each example.
Duffy: So Will Kinney, exactly what year did they finally get all the errors out of the King James Bible? Two of the differences that we pointed between Cambridge editions at Acts 7:28 and Rom. 10:7 are also differences between the 1769 Oxford and the 1769 Cambridge. Between those two still-popular King James texts, here are a few of the differences:
At Acts 7:28:
1769 Cambridge: as thou “killedst” the Egyptian
1769 Oxford: as thou “diddest” the Egyptian
At Romans 10:7:
1769 Cambridge: “ascend”
1769 Oxford: “descend”
And the pattern continues with:
Rom. 11:23 “not still in unbelief” vs. “not in unbelief”
1 Cor. 4:13 “the world” vs. “the earth”
2 Cor. 3:11 “is done” vs. “was done”
2 Cor. 12:2 “above” vs. “about”
Jam. 2:16 “and be ye filled” vs. “and filled”
1 Jo. 1:4: “your joy” vs. “our joy”
Rev. 18:22 "at all in thee, and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more” is missing from the 1769 Oxford
Mt. 19:29 “eternal life” vs. “everlasting life”
Mat. 18:12 “large sums of money” vs. “large money”
John 10:29 “none” vs. “no man”
Acts 21:25 “from things” vs. “from”
Lev. 11:10 “nor scales” vs. “and scales”
Num. 9:13 “from his people” vs “from among his people”
Deut. 11:30 “champian” vs. “champaign” (vs. the 1611’s “champion”, so things are going downhill here)
2 Sam. 19:18 “came” vs. “was come”
So Will Kinney, again, to the rest of the Body of Christ, these changes do not hinder the effectiveness of God’s robust word. But to the KJO camp, you guys claim a “100% textually pure” Bible. So my question is, exactly what year did they finally get all the errors out of the King James Bible? [end of Will Duffy's comments]
Now to address each of these examples
At Acts 7:28:
1769 Cambridge: as thou “killedst” the Egyptian
1769 Oxford: as thou “diddest” the Egyptian
Here both the original KJB 1611 and the present day Cambridge and Oxford editions all read the same - "Wilt thou kill me as thou diddest the Egyptian?" And the online KJB 1769 edition also reads "as thou diddest", just like they all do today. You can see it here -
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/acts/7.html
There may have been an errant printing at one time in a Cambridge 1769 edition (or not), but it is not there today. Both the Oxford and Cambridge read the same.
At Romans 10:7:
1769 Cambridge: “ascend”
1769 Oxford: “descend”
Same thing here. The original 1611, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions all read the same - "Or, who shall DESCEND into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)" So does the online 1769 edition.
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/romans/10.html
If this actually happened, then it was obviously a one time printing error that was soon caught and corrected.
And the pattern continues with:
Rom. 11:23 “not still in unbelief” vs. “not in unbelief”
Yes, the same pattern. All of them still read "if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in" - the original 1611, the 1769 and the Oxford and the Cambridge all read the exact same way. IF this other way of reading every actually happened, then it was a minor printing error in one edition that was soon caught and corrected.
1 Cor. 4:13 “the world” vs. “the earth”
Same thing here. The original 1611 read "we are made as the filth of the world" and so do the 1769 edition, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions. You either made up this alleged printing error, or it was some weird anomaly in a printing there is no record of.
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/1corinthians/4.html
2 Cor. 3:11 “is done” vs. “was done”
Same thing. The original 1611, the 1769 edition, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions all read the same. Nothing has ever changed. "For if that which IS DONE away was glorious..."
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/2corinthians/3.html
2 Cor. 12:2 “above” vs. “about”
Same thing. The 1611, the 1769, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions all read the same - "I knew a man in Christ ABOVE fourteen years ago". This "printing error" never happened, or it was a fluke of some unknown printed version.
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/2corinthians/12.html
Jam. 2:16 “and be ye filled” vs. “and filled”
Same thing. The original 1611, the 1769 edition, the Oxford and the Cambridge all read the same - "Depart in peace, be ye warmed AND FILLED"
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/james/2.html
1 Jo. 1:4: “your joy” vs. “our joy”
Same thing. The original 1611, the 1769, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions all read the same - "And these things write we unto you, that YOUR joy may be full."
Rev. 18:22 "at all in thee, and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more” is missing from the 1769 Oxford
Once again, this simply is not true. The original 1611, the 1769, Oxford and Cambridge all read the same and contain these words - “and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee”
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/revelation/18.html
Mt. 19:29 “eternal life” vs. “everlasting life”
Again, not true. The 1611, 1769, Oxford and Cambridge editions all read the same - “and shall inherit EVERLASTING life.”
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/matthew/19.html
Mat. 18:12 (Matthew 28:12) “large sums of money” vs. “large money”
You made a printing error. The verse is not Matthew 18:12 but 28:12, and again it is not true. The original 1611, the 1769, Oxford and Cambridge editions are all identical - “they gave LARGE MONEY unto the soldiers.”
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/matthew/28.html
John 10:29 “none” vs. “no man”
Again, not true. The original 1611, 1769, Oxford and Cambridge editions all read the same - “and NO MAN is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.”
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/john/10.html
Acts 21:25 “from things” vs. “from”
Again, not true at all. The original 1611, the 1769, Oxford and Cambridge editions all read the same - “save only that they keep themselves FROM THINGS offered to idols”
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/acts/21.html
Lev. 11:10 “nor scales” vs. “and scales”
This is the only one so far that is different. The original 1611 read "And all that have not fins NOR scales in the seas." The 1769 as well as the Oxford and Cambridge editions all read "And all that have not fins AND scales in the sea"
Even today some modern versions say "NOR scales" while others have "AND scales" Reading "NOR scales" were the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible, while Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, The Great Bible and Matthew's Bible all read "AND scales".
Num. 9:13 “from his people” vs “from among his people”
Here the original 1611 had "the same soul shall be cut off from his people", but the 1769, Oxford and Cambridge read - "the same soul shall be cut off from AMONG his people." Obviously the meaning is the same. Even today the versions differ from each other with some reading "from his people" and others "from among his people" The underlying text is the same and the meaning is the same. The ASV has "from his people" while Darby and Rotherham have "from among his people"
Deut. 11:30 “champian” vs. “champaign” (vs. the 1611’s “champion”, so things are going downhill here)
This is a mere example of spelling changes in the English language. The 1769, Oxford and Cambridge editions all read "which dwell in the CHAMPAIGN over against Gilgal". A champaign is 1. "a broad expanse of plain" 2. "flat, open country." It is not even an archaic word. But none of them had "champian". You either made this up, or it might have been a misprinted edition that occurred at some time in the 400 year history of the King James Bible. But once again, "champion" and "champaign" are due to the changes in spelling in English. It was not at all an attempt to change the text. Spelling had not yet become standardized.
2 Sam. 19:18 “came” vs. “was come”
And once more this simply is not true. The original 1611, the 1769, Oxford and Cambridge all read the same - “…fell down before the king, as he WAS COME over Jordan.”
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/2samuel/19.html
Bible Agnostics and unbelievers in the existence of an inerrant Bible, Bob Enyart and Will Duffy smugly ask: "So Will Kinney, again, to the rest of the Body of Christ, these changes do not hinder the effectiveness of God’s robust word. But to the KJO camp, you guys claim a “100% textually pure” Bible. So my question is, exactly what year did they finally get all the errors out of the King James Bible?"
Again, for guys like Bob Enyart and Will Duffy, even if every single printing of the King James Bible that ever came off the presses in over 400 years were all exactly the same, they would still not believe it is the complete and inerrant words of God. They are merely tossing dust into the air, hoping to cloud the issues. Most of the examples they give us here in this list are not true. The original 1611 printing as well as the 1769 and the Oxford and Cambridge bibles all read the same.
For those 2 or 3 examples where there were extremely minor differences, not one of them changed the meaning of the verse nor departs from the underlying Greek or Hebrew texts that make up the King James Bible. But because they somehow feel the need to reject the idea of an inerrant Bible in ANY language, they will stumble over these pebbles in the road and remain bible agnostics. For those who have ears to hear, you can get yourself a copy of the complete, inerrant, inspired and 100% true words of God by purchasing a Cambridge edition of the King James Bible in any bookstore. Or you can order them from either of these two Bible publishers, and you can see it online here.
Online site where you can see the inerrant words of God
https://www.biblegateway.com
Buy a quality King James Bible at cost
A great place to buy quality made King James Holy Bibles
Bearing Precious Seed
http://www.bpsmilford.org
And here is another one
http://www.localchurchbiblepublishers.com/
Those who chose to remain Bible agnostics and unbelievers in the inerrancy of The Bible (ANY Bible) will continue to mock and ridicule the idea that God has actually worked in history to give us an inerrant Bible in any language.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Corinthians 14:38
All of grace, believing The Book - The King James Holy Bible
Will Kinney
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
Will Duffy's Bogus List of Changes in the KJB
Will Duffy's Bogus List of Changes in the King James Bible
Will Duffy, who himself does not even belief his own NKJV that he "uses" is the complete and inerrant words of God, posted this list of what he says are textual changes made in the King James Bible. I will first post the list, and then address each example.
Duffy: So Will Kinney, exactly what year did they finally get all the errors out of the King James Bible? Two of the differences that we pointed between Cambridge editions at Acts 7:28 and Rom. 10:7 are also differences between the 1769 Oxford and the 1769 Cambridge. Between those two still-popular King James texts, here are a few of the differences:
At Acts 7:28:
1769 Cambridge: as thou “killedst” the Egyptian
1769 Oxford: as thou “diddest” the Egyptian
At Romans 10:7:
1769 Cambridge: “ascend”
1769 Oxford: “descend”
And the pattern continues with:
Rom. 11:23 “not still in unbelief” vs. “not in unbelief”
1 Cor. 4:13 “the world” vs. “the earth”
2 Cor. 3:11 “is done” vs. “was done”
2 Cor. 12:2 “above” vs. “about”
Jam. 2:16 “and be ye filled” vs. “and filled”
1 Jo. 1:4: “your joy” vs. “our joy”
Rev. 18:22 "at all in thee, and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more” is missing from the 1769 Oxford
Mt. 19:29 “eternal life” vs. “everlasting life”
Mat. 18:12 “large sums of money” vs. “large money”
John 10:29 “none” vs. “no man”
Acts 21:25 “from things” vs. “from”
Lev. 11:10 “nor scales” vs. “and scales”
Num. 9:13 “from his people” vs “from among his people”
Deut. 11:30 “champian” vs. “champaign” (vs. the 1611’s “champion”, so things are going downhill here)
2 Sam. 19:18 “came” vs. “was come”
So Will Kinney, again, to the rest of the Body of Christ, these changes do not hinder the effectiveness of God’s robust word. But to the KJO camp, you guys claim a “100% textually pure” Bible. So my question is, exactly what year did they finally get all the errors out of the King James Bible? [end of Will Duffy's comments]
Now to address each of these examples
At Acts 7:28:
1769 Cambridge: as thou “killedst” the Egyptian
1769 Oxford: as thou “diddest” the Egyptian
Here both the original KJB 1611 and the present day Cambridge and Oxford editions all read the same - "Wilt thou kill me as thou diddest the Egyptian?" And the online KJB 1769 edition also reads "as thou diddest", just like they all do today. You can see it here -
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/acts/7.html
There may have been an errant printing at one time in a Cambridge 1769 edition (or not), but it is not there today. Both the Oxford and Cambridge read the same.
At Romans 10:7:
1769 Cambridge: “ascend”
1769 Oxford: “descend”
Same thing here. The original 1611, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions all read the same - "Or, who shall DESCEND into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)" So does the online 1769 edition.
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/romans/10.html
If this actually happened, then it was obviously a one time printing error that was soon caught and corrected.
And the pattern continues with:
Rom. 11:23 “not still in unbelief” vs. “not in unbelief”
Yes, the same pattern. All of them still read "if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in" - the original 1611, the 1769 and the Oxford and the Cambridge all read the exact same way. IF this other way of reading every actually happened, then it was a minor printing error in one edition that was soon caught and corrected.
1 Cor. 4:13 “the world” vs. “the earth”
Same thing here. The original 1611 read "we are made as the filth of the world" and so do the 1769 edition, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions. You either made up this alleged printing error, or it was some weird anomaly in a printing there is no record of.
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/1corinthians/4.html
2 Cor. 3:11 “is done” vs. “was done”
Same thing. The original 1611, the 1769 edition, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions all read the same. Nothing has ever changed. "For if that which IS DONE away was glorious..."
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/2corinthians/3.html
2 Cor. 12:2 “above” vs. “about”
Same thing. The 1611, the 1769, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions all read the same - "I knew a man in Christ ABOVE fourteen years ago". This "printing error" never happened, or it was a fluke of some unknown printed version.
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/2corinthians/12.html
Jam. 2:16 “and be ye filled” vs. “and filled”
Same thing. The original 1611, the 1769 edition, the Oxford and the Cambridge all read the same - "Depart in peace, be ye warmed AND FILLED"
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/james/2.html
1 Jo. 1:4: “your joy” vs. “our joy”
Same thing. The original 1611, the 1769, the Oxford and the Cambridge editions all read the same - "And these things write we unto you, that YOUR joy may be full."
Rev. 18:22 "at all in thee, and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more” is missing from the 1769 Oxford
Once again, this simply is not true. The original 1611, the 1769, Oxford and Cambridge all read the same and contain these words - “and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee”
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/revelation/18.html
Mt. 19:29 “eternal life” vs. “everlasting life”
Again, not true. The 1611, 1769, Oxford and Cambridge editions all read the same - “and shall inherit EVERLASTING life.”
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/matthew/19.html
Mat. 18:12 (Matthew 28:12) “large sums of money” vs. “large money”
You made a printing error. The verse is not Matthew 18:12 but 28:12, and again it is not true. The original 1611, the 1769, Oxford and Cambridge editions are all identical - “they gave LARGE MONEY unto the soldiers.”
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/matthew/28.html
John 10:29 “none” vs. “no man”
Again, not true. The original 1611, 1769, Oxford and Cambridge editions all read the same - “and NO MAN is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.”
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/john/10.html
Acts 21:25 “from things” vs. “from”
Again, not true at all. The original 1611, the 1769, Oxford and Cambridge editions all read the same - “save only that they keep themselves FROM THINGS offered to idols”
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/acts/21.html
Lev. 11:10 “nor scales” vs. “and scales”
This is the only one so far that is different. The original 1611 read "And all that have not fins NOR scales in the seas." The 1769 as well as the Oxford and Cambridge editions all read "And all that have not fins AND scales in the sea"
Even today some modern versions say "NOR scales" while others have "AND scales" Reading "NOR scales" were the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible, while Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, The Great Bible and Matthew's Bible all read "AND scales".
Num. 9:13 “from his people” vs “from among his people”
Here the original 1611 had "the same soul shall be cut off from his people", but the 1769, Oxford and Cambridge read - "the same soul shall be cut off from AMONG his people." Obviously the meaning is the same. Even today the versions differ from each other with some reading "from his people" and others "from among his people" The underlying text is the same and the meaning is the same. The ASV has "from his people" while Darby and Rotherham have "from among his people"
Deut. 11:30 “champian” vs. “champaign” (vs. the 1611’s “champion”, so things are going downhill here)
This is a mere example of spelling changes in the English language. The 1769, Oxford and Cambridge editions all read "which dwell in the CHAMPAIGN over against Gilgal". A champaign is 1. "a broad expanse of plain" 2. "flat, open country." It is not even an archaic word. But none of them had "champian". You either made this up, or it might have been a misprinted edition that occurred at some time in the 400 year history of the King James Bible. But once again, "champion" and "champaign" are due to the changes in spelling in English. It was not at all an attempt to change the text. Spelling had not yet become standardized.
2 Sam. 19:18 “came” vs. “was come”
And once more this simply is not true. The original 1611, the 1769, Oxford and Cambridge all read the same - “…fell down before the king, as he WAS COME over Jordan.”
http://thebiblecorner.com/englishbibles/kingjamesversion1769/2samuel/19.html
Bible Agnostics and unbelievers in the existence of an inerrant Bible, Bob Enyart and Will Duffy smugly ask: "So Will Kinney, again, to the rest of the Body of Christ, these changes do not hinder the effectiveness of God’s robust word. But to the KJO camp, you guys claim a “100% textually pure” Bible. So my question is, exactly what year did they finally get all the errors out of the King James Bible?"
Again, for guys like Bob Enyart and Will Duffy, even if every single printing of the King James Bible that ever came off the presses in over 400 years were all exactly the same, they would still not believe it is the complete and inerrant words of God. They are merely tossing dust into the air, hoping to cloud the issues. Most of the examples they give us here in this list are not true. The original 1611 printing as well as the 1769 and the Oxford and Cambridge bibles all read the same.
For those 2 or 3 examples where there were extremely minor differences, not one of them changed the meaning of the verse nor departs from the underlying Greek or Hebrew texts that make up the King James Bible. But because they somehow feel the need to reject the idea of an inerrant Bible in ANY language, they will stumble over these pebbles in the road and remain bible agnostics. For those who have ears to hear, you can get yourself a copy of the complete, inerrant, inspired and 100% true words of God by purchasing a Cambridge edition of the King James Bible in any bookstore. Or you can order them from either of these two Bible publishers, and you can see it online here.
Online site where you can see the inerrant words of God
https://www.biblegateway.com
Buy a quality King James Bible at cost
A great place to buy quality made King James Holy Bibles
Bearing Precious Seed
http://www.bpsmilford.org
And here is another one
http://www.localchurchbiblepublishers.com/
Those who chose to remain Bible agnostics and unbelievers in the inerrancy of The Bible (ANY Bible) will continue to mock and ridicule the idea that God has actually worked in history to give us an inerrant Bible in any language.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Corinthians 14:38
All of grace, believing The Book - The King James Holy Bible
Will Kinney
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
Which KJV Bible was God’s perfectly preserved translation in English? The one in 1611 or one of the revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or the last one in 1850? Please specify which one.
You are a long way behind in the discussion. I suggested you read the main debate first. And 1850 was not the last revision.
My highlighting. Will Duffy wasn't asking what the cause of these errors were. You didn't answer the question. He asked you what year the errors were finally eradicated. You wrote thousands of words wasting your time and changing the subject. You could have answered with a simple date. Perhaps your first bolded section is the most revealing of your thought processes
but it is not there today
In other words you only believe that the Bible you can buy today is 100% inerrant. So long as you, Will Kinney, are well sorted, that is all that matters. I don't think you care that none of those people in the past 2000 years had this version.
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Use the definition that you used when you said "The KJV is without error" and tell us which versions are without error and which versions have errors.
I have asked you this over a dozen times in this thread.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Do you believe KJB believers put it above God?
As predicted, you won't answer the question.
What is it with you KJVO's and answering questions?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Use the definition that you used when you said "The KJV is without error" and tell us which versions are without error and which versions have errors.
I have asked you this over a dozen times in this thread.
Once again, you won't answer the question.
I already answered your question.
We all know why you won't answer. It's what you KJVO's do.
It's impossible to defend KJVO. Therefore, there are certain questions you guys won't answer because you know if you do, you refute yourself in doing so.
Why can't you just be honest?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
This is how it went down.
STP: "Tell us which versions have errors and which versions do not have errors."
Tet: "Define error."
STP: "Use the definition you used when you claimed that the KJV was without error."
No answer. Just misdirection.
Just tell us which versions are okay to "use".
I already told you either every version has errors, or no versions have errors. I also explained to you that translations from one language to another language can be subjective.
It all depends on how you define "error".
Two people have asked you to define "error", and you have refused every time you have been asked.
You're the KJVO, not us.
Again, we all know why you won't answer. Instead you play games.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Nope, you said most versions are without error.
I then asked which versions are without error, and which versions have errors.
This is how this all began. Do I need to find the posts?
What a vicious web you weave, when you practice to deceive.
they are all man made
but
few of them are authorized
but
few of them are authorized
They can't, and won't.
It's the same reason STP won't define the word "error".
They claim the KJB is inerrant, but won't tell us what an "error" is.
it's a mistake
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Use the definition you used when you said "The KJV is without error".
You owe it to the rest of us to tell us which versions are okay to "use".
You won't.
Why? You are a fraud.
For the record:
The King James Bible was never authorized.
Not by royal proclamation.
Not by order of Council.
Not by an act of Parliament.
Not by a vote of Convocation.