KJV: good site

Brucebaptist: heres a good website for us folks that love the KJ...

There's no such thing.



Salty;1576439 I am so thankful that the link gave proof that the KJV is the only Bible:

It gave NO such proof...just human opinion & guesswork.

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

We have discussed the fact ad nauseam in other now-archived threads that V7 is about PEOPLE, namely David & friends as they were hiding from Saul.(Remember the marginal note in the AV1611 for the 2nd them in V7: "Heb. him, I. euery one of them.") Besides that, WHERE IS THE KJV MENTIONED in thosr verses????????????

The King James Bible was the seventh English Bible, and it was translated in seven years. Do you think that’s just a coincidence? Think about that for a while!

If that doesnt convince you, nothing will....

Well, it DOESN'T, & NOTHING from KJVO will, cuz it's all FALSE.

It was NOT the 7th!
Wycliffe's
Tyndale's
Coverdale's
Matthew's
"Great Bible"(1st "authorized" version)
Geneva Bible
Bishop's Bible
AV1611
The AV1611 was the 9TH major English version. Dr. Cassidy has named several others.
First work on the AV was begun on October 1603 even before KJ authorized it, by a group of Anglican clerics.(As Henry VIII had made himself & his successors titular head of the Anglican Church, KJ had assumed that office when he became king of England.) Even with KJ's permission, however, the work went slowly until early 1607, with a folio version being released in 1611. It was not until 1612 that it was printed/sold in book form.
The title page reads:"The | HOLY | BIBLE, | Conteyning the Old Testament, | AND THE NEW, | Newly Translated out of the Original | tongues: & with the former Translations | diligently compared and revised by his | Maiesties special Comandement. | Appointed to be read in Churches | Imprinted at London by Robert | Barker, Printer to the Kings | most excellent Maiestie | Anno Dom. 1611."

So, actually, it took the sunny side of 9 years to make the AV from conception to publication.

Such misinformation as what you posted above, Salty, is one reason KJVO is rejected by most Christians. It is a MAN-MADE doctrine, fulla goofs & errors as those above, NOT SUPPORTED WHATSOEVER BY SCRIPTURE, derived from a cult official's book, that book being Our Authorized Bible Vindicated by Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson, a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official.

 

Any valid version. Each one came out as GOD willed.

 

Any valid version.

And a "valid" version is one that follows its sources closely.

As for the validity of the sources themselves, it's become a game of "MAH skoller kin whup YER skoller" that's been going on for 130-odd years.

 

I'm repeating myself here, but I'll say it once more. I'm NOT KJVO, but common sense ought to tell you that all the different versions, some keeping passages, some not putting them in there, some wording things differently, etc. CANNOT all be the Word of God. It's just common sense, people. I'm not buying the "older manuscripts are more accurate " baloney either. I use the KJV, I like the NKJV and the ESV. But when you have as many versions as there are out "there" now, none being the same..............SOME have to have it wrong.

 

Originally Posted by C4K
Similar challenge to you.

Which rendering of 1 John 5v12 is God's word? The one rendered in 1611 (He that hath the Son hath life and he that hath not the Son hath not life) or the one rendered in 1769 (He that hath the Son hath life and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life)?

1611.

Brucebaptist:but i dont see a difference between these two. the meanings are the same and will not send a soul to hell... there is only 1 conclusion from these and there is no confusion.

robycop3: Then, which version of the verse is perfect?

 

They are different. One either ADDED a word or two, or one LEFT OUT a word or two. Since God INSPIRED His exact words, one of them is wrong, but BOTH cannot be the INSPIRED Word Of God. And , YES, it's important to me. I want the WORDS OF GOD, not a paraphrase, or something that "means the same thing".

 

And of course don't forget that the KJV has "Saviour" with 7 letters instead of 6 like the modern versions do...

This stuff would be hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that these guys are actually serious.

btw, the ESV came out in 2001. Add the numbers, it makes 3. Now how many total numbers are there? 4. Add those together and you get 7! You know what that means? Nothing, just stupidity, that's all.

 

Oh no!

How in the world would you believe that the newer manuscripts were better? Especially when they are contradicted by most others,

 

You do realize that God didn't give us his words in English right? Something that "means the same thing" is where we have the English word that means the same thing as the original. I would think that would be a good thing.

 

This is nonsense. God has said in several verses not to add or diminish from his word.

Jer 26:2 Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD'S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD'S house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deut 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

The Critical Text has nearly 3000 less words in the Greek compared to the Received Text. Either the Critical text greatly diminished God's word, or the Received Text added many words. But to say they are both valid is ridiculous and insulting to the intelligence of any reasonable person.

 

EXACTLY! Common sense (which seems to be lacking these days) would tell anyone with half a brain they ALL cannot be right, yet they continue to argue that they are.

 

Yes, and then those who believe the KJB the correct text are accused of propagating a lie until it is believed.

The only ones fooled by this false argument are the ones who make it.

 

Ok fine, the KJV is corrupt. Is that would you want to hear?

 

And there's about 300 different kinds of Baptists. So to apply your reasoning, only ONE kind of Baptist is right. :laugh:

If you really, really want to study the KJVO issue, take Doc Cassidy up on his offer rather than listening to people like Mr. Cloud who have very little credibility.

 

So, howdya know WHICH IS CORRECT????????? You are only GUESSING.

Howdya KNOW the KJV doesn't OMIT the words "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25?

And where does GOD declare "this" text right & "that " text wrong?

 

Brucebaptist:in that case, all of the different denominations of Christianity has come out "just as God willed"...?
i dont think so.

Butcha can't prove any DIFFERENTLY...
And umpteen denoms use the KJV; umpteen others use the NIV, on & on.....

there is one God. one Word. one Church. one Body of Christ.

...and NO KJVO nor any other committment by GOD to any one version in any one language in that one word!

good grief. who started this thread anyway...??

YOU did ! ! !
__________________

 

I know I am using a true bible also when I use the Geneva Bible, AV1611, NIV, 1769 KJV, NASV, NKJV, or any other valid English version. Betcha can't prove differently!

 

On this I totally agree.

And since we have a point of agreement I am closing this thread which we have all dragged totally off optic.