I fear

[Winman]

Why didn't he use the word "chose" (ἐκλέγομαι eklegomai) instead of the word, "foreknew?" (προγινώσκω proginōskō)

I think he said what he meant and meant what he said. What about this text makes you think "reject" is the antonym for "foreknew?" While I don't disagree with the belief that God had, generally speaking, chosen Israel, I don't believe the word προγινώσκω means "chose" in the manner you have displayed. The verse states:

Well, if you were to listen to Calvinists, then you know God is not very skilled at expressing himself accurately. When he says "For God so loved the world" he really meant only the elect. When God said he is not willing that "any" should perish, he really meant only the elect, and he is indeed quite willing that multitudes perish.

We are so fortunate to have these scholars to tell us what God really intended to say.

 

[The Archangel]

Why didn't he use the word "chose" (ἐκλέγομαι eklegomai) instead of the word, "foreknew?" (προγινώσκω proginōskō)

I think he said what he meant and meant what he said. What about this text makes you think "reject" is the antonym for "foreknew?" While I don't disagree with the belief that God had, generally speaking, chosen Israel, I don't believe the word προγινώσκω means "chose" in the manner you have displayed. The verse states:

"God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew." means...
"God did not reject his people, whom he knew from the beginning."

There is another verse where the word "foreknew" is used:
2 Pe 3:17: "You therefore, beloved, since you know beforehand..."

In Greek: Ὑμεῖς οὖν ἀγαπητοί προγινώσκοντες

And Act 26:5: They knew me from the first, if they were willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

In Greek: προγινώσκοντές με ἄνωθεν ἐὰν θέλωσιν μαρτυρεῖν ὅτι κατὰ τὴν ἀκριβεστάτην αἵρεσιν τῆς ἡμετέρας θρησκείας ἔζησα Φαρισαῖος

Now, clearly this same word "foreknow" (προγινώσκω proginōskō) is clearly interpreted as "to know beforehand" or "to know from the beginning." No implication of "choice" is found in this word. None of the lexicons I have even mention "chose" as an option.

The context is what matters here. Romans 8:29 and Romans 11:2 are the only uses of this word in Paul. So, as you know, to see how a particular author uses a word is the key to interpretation. Regardless of your missing it, Paul is using the word in Romans 11:2 as the opposite of "rejected." Since Paul's normal usage is "chosen" that's what it also means in 8:29.

Paul uses εκλεγομαι only 3 times--1 Corinthians 1:27, 1 Corinthians 1:28, and Ephesians 1:4. Two of those instances--the Corinthians passage--are referring to things, not people. The Ephesians passage is talking about people.

But, when we consider the context of the Romans passages--that there were both Jews and Greeks and that there was apparently tension between the two groups, the use of "knew" by Paul can only be seen as a reference to the Old Testament where "knew" is sometimes used as a synonym for chose. It is clear that Paul is making a point by the specific use of this term.

Furthermore, it cannot be argued that God merely knew Israel beforehand. God chose Israel. All through the Old Testament we see God Himself actively at work in the choosing of individuals and, subsequently, the nation as a whole and, furthermore, the Remnant. This is not a passive act on God's part, it is active.

προγινοσκω, on the other hand, is used only 5 times in the New Testament--only three other times after Paul's two uses in Romans.

In Acts 26:5, it is used as a participle. In 2 Peter 3:17 it is also a participle. However, the word is clearly referring to something Peter has told them before hand, namely that people will come who twist the scriptures. It is a warning and not germane in usage to our discussion.

The last occurrence of προγινοσκω is 1 Peter 1:20 (again, a participle) and that usage refers to Christ Himself being foreknown. Now, it is absolutely insufficient to say that God merely knew beforehand what Jesus would do. The usage in 1 Peter is clearly in reference to choosing.

So, why didn't Paul use εκλεγομαι? I don't know. We can ask him someday. But, his usage of προγινοσκω leaves little doubt that he is referring to God's choosing.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Well, if you were to listen to Calvinists, then you know God is not very skilled at expressing himself accurately. When he says "For God so loved the world" he really meant only the elect. When God said he is not willing that "any" should perish, he really meant only the elect, and he is indeed quite willing that multitudes perish.

We are so fortunate to have these scholars to tell us what God really intended to say.

This is nowhere close to accurate. Again, you're looking at the caricature, not reality. But, that's what we've come to expect from your disingenuous postings, isn't it?

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

This is nowhere close to accurate. Again, you're looking at the caricature, not reality. But, that's what we've come to expect from your disingenuous postings, isn't it?

The Archangel

It is a very accurate description of many Calvinists. I could go back and search posts where you have several times said scripture does not say what it is easily understood to say. But I think you know that is a fact for yourself.

Archangel, my posting are never disingenuous, although I can be very sarcastic. I am not very tolerant of people, and when I see people going through gyrations and mental gymnastics to make scripture conform to their presuppositions, I tend to mock them.

It is like the little child who was the only one to confess that the Emperor was not wearing clothes. Oh, folks are quite aware that their doctrine does not match up with scripture, but pride will often prevent a person from admitting it to themselves. And others around will play along for their own reasons.

Prov 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

 

[The Archangel]

It is a very accurate description of many Calvinists. I could go back and search posts where you have several times said scripture does not say what it is easily understood to say. But I think you know that is a fact for yourself.

Translation: Since you use the KJV it itself is scripture and any attempt to clarify or correct a translation error is in and of itself blasphemy.

I have never said "the Bible doesn't say." I have pointed out where your interpretation, the KJV translation, etc. are not correct. Get over yourself.

Archangel, my posting are never disingenuous, although I can be very sarcastic. I am not very tolerant of people, and when I see people going through gyrations and mental gymnastics to make scripture conform to their presuppositions, I tend to mock them.

You, then, should be mocking yourself.

It is like the little child who was the only one to confess that the Emperor was not wearing clothes. Oh, folks are quite aware that their doctrine does not match up with scripture, but pride will often prevent a person from admitting it to themselves. And others around will play along for their own reasons.

Prov 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I honestly don't know how you can call Christians "brothers" when you demonstrate your constant and consistent un-love for them. Even if we grant that you are right (which is only for the sake of argument) you do not "Speak the truth in love" and you never have.

Very sad indeed.

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

So, why didn't Paul use εκλεγομαι? I don't know. We can ask him someday. But, his usage of προγινοσκω leaves little doubt that he is referring to God's choosing.

Like I said, this view doesn't really contradict what I believe and how I understand the passage. I'm just attempting to show that the word itself can be seen as "to know from the beginning" or "to know beforehand," and that there were other words Paul could have used to convey the idea of "chose" more clearly. For example in 2 Thess 2:13, Paul uses the word αἱρέω haireō, when he writes, "But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."

We obviously come at these verses from two totally different perspectives and believe me when I say that I understand yours, I argued it vehemently for a decade. Sometimes I just wonder how much SOME Calvinists really understand the other perspective because they are so used to viewing these passages through Calvinistic colored glasses.

 

[Winman]

Translation: Since you use the KJV it itself is scripture and any attempt to clarify or correct a translation error is in and of itself blasphemy.

I have never said "the Bible doesn't say." I have pointed out where your interpretation, the KJV translation, etc. are not correct. Get over yourself.

I asked you before, if the KJV is not the infallible Word of God, which version is? You responded that none are. How can a person have faith in that which he believes is corrupt?

So, you claim the original languages are correct, although you nor anyone else on earth has these documents.

What seems to escape you is that Jesus himself is the Word of God.

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Now, I'm sure you will agree that Jesus is perfect and infallible, but then you believe his word is not. I happen to disagree and believe the many promises that God gave of preserving his word. I also believe God completely capable of preserving his word.

Let me ask you something. When Jesus read the scriptures in Nazareth, do you believe he had the original writings, or copies?

Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Now, do you think Jesus had the actual writings of Isaiah in his hands, or a copy? If the original did exist, wouldn't it more likely to have been in Jerusalem? And isn't it very likely that the original document had worn out centuries before?

Jesus NEVER questioned the scriptures, in fact he declared that they could not be broken. He had supreme confidence in their accuracy.

Now you as a Calvinist would be quick to say that God is sovereign and determined all things that would happen in eternity past. And for 400 years now the KJV has been the dominant version of scripture. As Enland expanded it's empire across the whole world, and later when America sent out missionaries to every land, it was primarily the KJV that was taken to preach the word of God.

So, you believe God would determine a corrupted version represent his word? Is that what you believe?

Now, I don't care how much you ridicule me for believing the KJV. It is you that lacks faith, not I.

 

[The Archangel]

I asked you before, if the KJV is not the infallible Word of God, which version is? You responded that none are. How can a person have faith in that which he believes is corrupt?

So, you claim the original languages are correct, although you nor anyone else on earth has these documents.

What seems to escape you is that Jesus himself is the Word of God.

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Now, I'm sure you will agree that Jesus is perfect and infallible, but then you believe his word is not. I happen to disagree and believe the many promises that God gave of preserving his word. I also believe God completely capable of preserving his word.

Let me ask you something. When Jesus read the scriptures in Nazareth, do you believe he had the original writings, or copies?

Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Now, do you think Jesus had the actual writings of Isaiah in his hands, or a copy? If the original did exist, wouldn't it more likely to have been in Jerusalem? And isn't it very likely that the original document had worn out centuries before?

Jesus NEVER questioned the scriptures, in fact he declared that they could not be broken. He had supreme confidence in their accuracy.

Now you as a Calvinist would be quick to say that God is sovereign and determined all things that would happen in eternity past. And for 400 years now the KJV has been the dominant version of scripture. As Enland expanded it's empire across the whole world, and later when America sent out missionaries to every land, it was primarily the KJV that was taken to preach the word of God.

So, you believe God would determine a corrupted version represent his word? Is that what you believe?

Now, I don't care how much you ridicule me for believing the KJV. It is you that lacks faith, not I.

So funny--and ridiculously so--and so sad all at the same time.

You say:

I asked you before, if the KJV is not the infallible Word of God, which version is? You responded that none are. How can a person have faith in that which he believes is corrupt?

So, you claim the original languages are correct, although you nor anyone else on earth has these documents.

What seems to escape you is that Jesus himself is the Word of God.

Here you have a contradiction. Either the KJV is the infallible word of God or Jesus is. You cannot have both.

You say:

Let me ask you something. When Jesus read the scriptures in Nazareth, do you believe he had the original writings, or copies?

Now, do you think Jesus had the actual writings of Isaiah in his hands, or a copy? If the original did exist, wouldn't it more likely to have been in Jerusalem? And isn't it very likely that the original document had worn out centuries before?

The would have been copies. However, they would have been copies of the original and, because they were used in the synagogue, they would have been in Hebrew. Even today, synagogues have scrolls in Hebrew and they are read in Hebrew.

Even when the LXX was translated from Hebrew to Greek, many still looked back at the Hebrew (although the LXX is widely quoted in the New Testament).

So you are mixing apples and oranges. We are not talking about translating Hebrew to another language and the "new" language becoming the only authoritative edition.

Here's where you fallacy becomes hilariously silly. You would have us believe that, since the KJV, is the only true, infallible word of God that all of our missions endeavors--say to Africa--would have to be done in English. Because, to translate the Bible into another language--say an African dialect--would be blasphemy. That's ludicrous and shows the bankrupt logic of your KJV only position.

Now, I don't care how much you ridicule me for believing the KJV. It is you that lacks faith, not I.

To have faith in a "Translation" of the original, which itself is not the original, is to be an idolater.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

Here's where you fallacy becomes hilariously silly. You would have us believe that, since the KJV, is the only true, infallible word of God that all of our missions endeavors--say to Africa--would have to be done in English. Because, to translate the Bible into another language--say an African dialect--would be blasphemy. That's ludicrous and shows the bankrupt logic of your KJV only position.

I do not believe this, I believe the KJV is the infallible English version of the scriptures. I am not against an accurate translation into another language.

Here you have a contradiction. Either the KJV is the infallible word of God or Jesus is. You cannot have both.

I am saying that the scriptures are the very words of God. The scriptures are not Jesus, but the words are his words. And I happen to believe that a perfect and infallible Saviour would preserve his words.

I am not going to continue to debate this with you, if I wanted to debate this issue I know where to go on this forum. I have debated this years ago, and already know that almost never does anyone change their opinion on this subject.

I know you are a big fan of James White who also dislikes the KJV passionately, perhaps you would enjoy this site. This fellow has a strong dislike for James White and his arguments against the KJV.

I am in no way saying I agree with the author of this site on doctrine, I very recently found this site and have not had a lot of time to read there. But it is a good resource of books on this subject.

http://www.hissheep.org/kjv/a_public_rebuke_of_james_white.html

 

[The Archangel]

I do not believe this, I believe the KJV is the infallible English version of the scriptures. I am not against an accurate translation into another language.

Well, as for a belief that the KJV is the infallible version of the Bible, you are not correct. There are some glaring errors in translation. No translation is perfect or "infallible."

Here's one instance: The word "Only Begotten" is mistranslated. The proper rendering should be "unique" or "only one of his kind." We know this because the very same "Only Begotten" is applied to Abraham's son Isaac. Now, Isaac was not Abraham's only son (Ishmael was a son too). However, though Isaac and Ishmael are two sons of Abraham, one--namely Isaac--is referred to as the only begotten son of Abraham. So, it is clear that it is not "Only Begotten," but "unique."

And which version of the KJV would be the infallible one? Would it be the 1611 or the myriad of updates after that?

As far as missions, would that translation be made from the Greek and Hebrew or from the KJV?

I know you are a big fan of James White who also dislikes the KJV passionately, perhaps you would enjoy this site. This fellow has a strong dislike for James White and his arguments against the KJV.

I am in no way saying I agree with the author of this site on doctrine, I very recently found this site and have not had a lot of time to read there. But it is a good resource of books on this subject.

http://www.hissheep.org/kjv/a_public_rebuke_of_james_white.html

I'm sorry, whom did you say? I think I may have heard of James White, but I've never read anything by him. So, you are incorrect; I am not a "fan." I am ambivalent when it comes to James White.

The Archangel

 

[Skandelon]

Winman,

KJV only? Really? I'm not going to debate your position because it seems absolutely indefensible to me, but I just thought I would chime in to point out that there are various versions of the KJV, the earliest of which are practically unreadable by most Americans today. Why wouldn't you support the idea of making the scriptures more understandable to modern day readers?

 

[quantumfaith]

Winman,

KJV only? Really? I'm not going to debate your position because it seems absolutely indefensible to me, but I just thought I would chime in to point out that there are various versions of the KJV, the earliest of which are practically unreadable by most Americans today. Why wouldn't you support the idea of making the scriptures more understandable to modern day readers?

I am with you Skandelon on this one. I do find myself aligning with Winman theologically speaking, but do not share the KJV only position.

 

[Winman]

I am with you Skandelon on this one. I do find myself aligning with Winman theologically speaking, but do not share the KJV only position.

The KJV is basically unchanged from 1611. Here is an interesting article on the changes that have been made in the KJV.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Reagan_myth-early.html

The main reason the original KJV looks different is the different style type. The original was Gothic Type Style. The second thing people notice is the spelling of words. English was still coming into it's own at this time, and there was no standard spelling for some words. As time went by a standard was established and so the words were spelled differently, but they are the same exact words. The third type of change was Textual. The article I showed can explain these changes much better than I.

As for people not agreeing with me, that's OK. Many years ago I did a detailed study on how the different versions of the Bible came to be. I read at least a dozen or more very comprehensive and complex books on the issue. I have probably forgotten everything I read at that time, but I became convinced that the KJV was the accurate word of God. It is also a matter of faith, I simply believe that Jesus is perfect and infallible, and that his word is perfect and infallible. The scriptures themselves say Jesus's name is "The Word of God"

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

That verse may not mean much to some people, but it means a great deal to me.

Matt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Years ago I noticed that Jesus said we are expected to live by "every word" that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. The word "every" really stuck with me, and I thought on it for days. Finally I realized if God expects us to live by every word, then a fair and just God would provide every word.

Another verse that led me to believe an infallible version exists is Revelations 22:18-19.

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.

Here God gives some very serious warnings to anyone who adds or takes away from his word. But what occured to me is that no man could possibly know if words had been added or subtracted unless a perfect and infallible version existed that could be identified.

There are many other verses beside these, but these are some of the scriptures that convinced me an infallible version existed. I have come to believe the KJV is that version in English. And as I have argued earlier, history itself supports the KJV. It has been the dominant Bible for almost 400 years now, and has been the version primarily used to evangelize the world. I do not think that an accident.

I don't argue with folks about it anymore though, few people change their opinion on this subject, I have debated it many times with many people.

But remember this, when Satan tempted Eve he added a word "not" to God's word (Gen 2:17 compare to Gen 3:4), and when he tempted Jesus he subtracted words "in all thy ways" (Psa 91:11-12 compare to Matt 4:6) from the scripture. All the newer versions are missing many scriptures and were taken from texts that did not agree with each other. God said two witnesses must agree.

Deut 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

It would be impossible to show what it took me years to learn on this forum.

 

[The Archangel]

The KJV is basically unchanged from 1611. Here is an interesting article on the changes that have been made in the KJV.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Reagan_myth-early.html

The main reason the original KJV looks different is the different style type. The original was Gothic Type Style. The second thing people notice is the spelling of words. English was still coming into it's own at this time, and there was no standard spelling for some words. As time went by a standard was established and so the words were spelled differently, but they are the same exact words. The third type of change was Textual. The article I showed can explain these changes much better than I.

As for people not agreeing with me, that's OK. Many years ago I did a detailed study on how the different versions of the Bible came to be. I have probably forgotten everything I read at that time, but I became convinced that the KJV was the accurate word of God. It is also a matter of faith, I simply believe that Jesus is perfect and infallible, and that his word is perfect and infallible. The scriptures themselves say Jesus's name is "The Word of God"

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

That verse may not mean much to some people, but it means a great deal to me.

Matt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Years ago I noticed that Jesus said we are expected to live by "every word" that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. The word "every" really stuck with me, and I thought on it for days. Finally I realized if God expects us to live by every word, then a fair and just God would provide every word.

Another verse that led me to believe an infallible version exists is Revelations 22:18-19.

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.

Here God gives some very serious warnings to anyone who adds or takes away from his word. But what occured to me is that no man could possibly know if words had been added or subtracted unless a perfect and infallible version existed that could be identified.

There are many other verses beside these, but these are some of the scriptures that convinced me an infallible version existed. I have come to believe the KJV is that version in English. And as I have argued earlier, history itself supports the KJV. It has been the dominant Bible for almost 400 years now, and has been the version primarily used to evangelize the world. I do not think that an accident.

I don't argue with folks about it though, few people change their opinion on this subject, I have debated it many times with many people.

With regards to the texts you posted...obviously context means nothing to you.

By the way, I'm not "Anti-King Jame Version." I still prefer to read the Psalms from the KJV. I'm all for preferring the KJV. But to say it is the word is just wrong.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

With regards to the texts you posted...obviously context means nothing to you.

By the way, I'm not "Anti-King Jame Version." I still prefer to read the Psalms from the KJV. I'm all for preferring the KJV. But to say it is the word is just wrong.

Blessings,

The Archangel

You think you just saying the KJV is wrong will convince me? I studied this in depth over 30 years ago, where were you then? Probably in diapers.

 

[olegig]

As for people not agreeing with me, that's OK. Many years ago I did a detailed study on how the different versions of the Bible came to be.

It would be impossible to show what it took me years to learn on this forum.

I respect your detailed study because I have done just enough to know it can be quiet involved and detailed.
From what I learned basically there were 2 sets of manuscripts passed down through the last 2 millennial.

These manuscripts were "copies" of the "originals"; therefore no one on earth has the "originals" and no one on earth can be confident the copy they have is true to the "originals".

It seems these 2 manuscripts, or rather manuscript trails, were at times at odds with each other for one was in the hands of the catholic church and the other in the hands of just common men.
These "common men" had roots in the men who did not attend the council of 300AD called by Constantine when the catholic church was organized.

One can find many historical accounts of the one strong group (catholic church) trying to obtain and destroy the manuscripts held by the lesser group.

It seems the KJV is the only version translated from the manuscripts passed down by the common man, while all other versions (including the NKJ) are translations of the copies which had been held and translated for centuries by men of the catholic persuasion like Origen.

I, for one, do believe in the Priesthood of the believer; therefore the believer does not need anything "thing" or any other "man" to interpret or tell him what God really meant when God said such-and-such for this would be placing something between God and man.
Men seem to enjoy this scholarly position for it gives them an air of power and self-respect.

I believe God has provided His scriptures to the common man today; therefore the only decision need made is which version.
Since I do not trust in anyway the catholic church along with all the power and politics it has shown over the last few millennial, I reject the manuscripts they have provided and therefore reject the versions which spring from those said manuscripts.
However, I feel everyone should be free to live and die by the version of their choice. It all boils down to authority. What is your authority? Is it one particular version? Is it your scholarly ability to translate a new version? Should there even be a common authority?

I do find a few things of aid in Bible study. One is a concordance, which I don't use much any more since the availability of the computer search. And the other aid I find quiet fascinating at times is a dictionary from the time around the 17th century.

 

[Rippon]

The KJV is basically unchanged from 1611.

You are mistaken.

I became convinced that the KJV was the accurate word of God. It is also a matter of faith,

It has absolutely nothing to do with your faith.

Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

That verse may not mean much to some people, but it means a great deal to me.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God as John 1:1 tells us. It has absolutely nothing to do with a Bible translation.

Another verse that led me to believe an infallible version exists is Revelations 22:18-19.

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.

You have really distorted the meaning to believe that that pasage teaches that there is an infallible version of the Bible. And by the way, the KJV's are "versions".

... no man could possibly know if words had been added or subtracted unless a perfect and infallible version existed that could be identified.

Your extreme anti-Calvinitic stance is matched by your extreme KJVO stance.

It has been the dominant Bible for almost 400 years now, and has been the version primarily used to evangelize the world. I do not think that an accident.

And the Vulgate was dominant for more than twic that length of time. And I would say that the KJV's have only been popular from the 1650's till the early 20th century, which is less than 300 years.

But remember this, when Satan tempted Eve he added a word "not" to God's word (Gen 2:17 compare to Gen 3:4), and when he tempted Jesus he subtracted words "in all thy ways" (Psa 91:11-12 compare to Matt 4:6) from the scripture. All the newer versions are missing many scriptures and were taken from texts that did not agree with each other. God said two witnesses must agree.

You are using the KJV's as a standard to determine your position. But is only a version. The KJV's missed inserting some passages.

It would be impossible to show what it took me years to learn on this forum.

Do you mean that forum? You surely don't mean this forum. It might take you some years to unlearn false ideas gleaned from KJVO websites.

 

[The Archangel]

You think you just saying the KJV is wrong will convince me? I studied this in depth over 30 years ago, where were you then? Probably in diapers.

--Yawn--

Even after all this time, it's a shame you still persist in your error.

The Archangel

 

[kyredneck]

......By the way, I'm not "Anti-King Jame Version." I still prefer to read the Psalms from the KJV. I'm all for preferring the KJV. But to say it is the word is just wrong.....

Ditto.

ASV, KJV, YLT, are three I use most often.

I cut my teeth on KJV, gotta keep it around!

 

[Rippon]

I cut my teeth on KJV,...

That must have been painful!