Featured AV 1611 KJV Holy Bible

First off, this thread needs/will be moved to another forum. Are you stating that the KJV is the only one? Listen, I use the KJV 95%+ of the time, but I would never call it the only one for the english speaking people. It's a version of God's Word, translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It's a WONDERFUL version, but not the only one.

 

Thanks for sharing your credentials with us.

Would you consider yourself KJVOnly? If so, can you share some of your proofs that the KJV is the only true Bible? Most of us have heard how it is preserved, with the proof texts used to support this, so to do this again would be a re-hash of what we've heard umpteen times to the 10th power.

If you have anything other than this that proves it, such as mathematical conclusions, numerologies and other things not commonly known, please share.

 

I used to be one of the BIGGEST KJVO's you'd ever dread to meet. But over time, I came to realize I was wrong. What did they have to read prior to 1611? Now, KJV is the one I use the majority of the time, but to place the KJV above the rest, means that the Hebrew/Greek is not as good as the KJV is. The KJV is a version, just like the NASB, NIV, CEV, NKJV, ESV, etc.

 

Hi Makahiya, and welcome to Baptist Board.

As a fellow King James "only", I can tell you right now that you have just kicked the hornet's nest. :tongue3:

They will be swarming all over you from far and wide.

 

At least the KJV has never been discredited. Like the greek text the NA 27 was taken from. My proof is in the introduction of the NA/27 and the explanation of the appratus they used in translating it.
MB

 

What is the "NA 27"?

Listen, I wouldn't want anyone to put down the KJV, it's my all-time fav that I use a majority of the time. It's been around for 401 yrs now, and that's a wonderful testimony in itself. But to state one translation is better than another is subjective at best. We all have our preferences, and I prefer the KJV. But I also have an NIV, ESV, and the Hebrew/Greek interlinears by Jay Green. All of these are good, too. I just prefer the KJV, and would never state it's the only one.

 

That which I bolded gets a !!!

You konw that the AV 1611 KJV has Jesus spelled Iesus and that "u" was "v" right? The KJV's I have don't use them. Do I have a deformed KJV?

 

First off, thanks for being forthcoming about your agenda, an agenda that was suspected, easily, by a cursory glance at your second post.

That all sounds so good, but you don't use the 1611, so really, it doesn't sound so good.

Actually I can honestly say the version I use is the Word of God.

Nonsense. There is nothing doctrinally changed in other versions, unless one uses the NWT as a proof, and attempts to bring all other versions to the same conclusion. Provide some proof for your spurious claims.

More nonsense. Paul could claim this, and so could other apostles, including the original recipients of the original autographs.

Yet another proof text that isn't reserved for defense of a version. You've taken it completely out of context. In addition there is zero scientific evidence supporting your theory about the '1611' yet here you request others to use scientific data, something which you can never provide.

Here you go again using another passage out of context in order to misapply the Word of God to a KJVO agenda. The passage doesn't mean anything close to what you want it to say.

You'll account for this some day.

 

This should be entertaining.

 

Yeah? I thought FAITH and theological issues should be settled by... well faith and theology.

the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text Novum Testamentum Graece

 

So the "word settled in heaven" and the KJV matches exactly??? I.e. there was no match on earth until 1611 or 1769?

Exhaustive evidence??????? What Ms evidence, what computational linguistic evidence, and what development of higher education evidence do you have??? I'm calling your bluff (or bunk). I'm saying that from where I'm sitting, you got nothing.

 

Then put me on ignore, but you failed to scientifically prove any of your assertions. Not to mention that you completely ignored my jabs and points. Will Kinney does a better job than this.

 

I think this is "The Fake KJVO"! It's so over the top, he's a brand new BB member, boasting of credentials... He is characaturing the real kjvo-double inspiration-Advanced Inspiration fanboy... Then again he could be a Ruckmanite...


Just in case, here's a link to the background of the kjvo movement.
http://www.kjv-only.com/doug/kjvoroots.html

 

Very good

What is your evidence of this claim?

Sure I can. It was only the original writers that were guided by the Spirit to pen down the original words of Scripture. The words were "God breathed." They are the very words of God. Copyist were not guided by the Spirit to be kept from error. The same goes for translations.

While true that all of the original autographs are probably not still in existence.

Yes, All Scripture. The KJV wasn't given by inspiration of God meaning that the KJV translators were not guided by the Spirit to be kept from error.

As I stated above, copies and translations are products of men copying or translating the words that God gave us. They are inspired as far as they are correct. It's the words that are inspired. With the exception of a few(like NWT), doctrine is the same.

They match in doctrine. There are variants. No one can honestly deny this. There are differences to opinion on some of the variants.

I can only offer a biblical explanation.

What does this have to do with the KJV?

1. The Bible is God breathed
2. The Bible is inerrant.
3. The Bible is preserved.
4. While there are errors in the copies, we still know what the original said to about a 99% understanding. The few variants we are not sure about change no doctrine at all.