How many variations would you guess would be the largest number of variations of one rendering in various KJV editions? [One rendering may be one word in some editions or divided into two or three words in another edition]. How many variations would you consider to be a large number for a single rendering?
How many variations would you guess would be the largest number of variations of one rendering in various KJV editions? [One rendering may be one word in some editions or divided into two or three words in another edition]. How many variations would you consider to be a large number for a single rendering?
Do changes in presentation of words in the proper line of historical editions of the King James Bible actually count as changes of rendering?
With a word like "flowers", there are a variety of spellings, yet it is the same word.
Even though the spelling appears as "thorowly" in several places in 1611, the correct form is "throughly" for those places, as is seen today. While this could appear to be a meaning change, it is not for a variety of reasons, such as printers' errors, unstandardised use of spelling, etc. Changing the spelling now, or pretending to go back to the 1611 today in these types of cases not only would be deceptive, but would be a deliberate change of meaning. This can be seen when words like "shamefacedness" are attacked by modernists who, in this case, ignore Dr Johnson.
Really, just five different spellings? Is there a historical basis for the CSTE spelling? Did any meanings change in the genuinely historical editions reckoned directly from the proper line listed above?
It does not really matter, since we have the standard today.
Is there a historical basis for the CSTE spelling?
Yes, there was a historical basis for the CSTE spelling as it is found in a Cambridge edition printed in 1790 and in an Oxford edition printed in 1804 and perhaps also in others.
Really, just five different spellings? ... Did any meanings change in the genuinely historical editions reckoned directly from the proper line listed above? It does not really matter, since we have the standard today.
Amen. I am glad KJB defenders don't waste their time on stuff like this, which is mildly interesting yet irrelevant to the meaning and accuracy and majesty of our pure Bible.
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
How many variations of one rendering in KJV?
I am glad KJB defenders don't waste their time on stuff like this, which is mildly interesting yet irrelevant to the meaning and accuracy and majesty of our pure Bible.
Linear Mode
