The Supposed Errors in the KJV

I suspect most people read and receive that (what you bolded) as a simple statement of what you believe about the KJV, not as something particularly defending the KJV. However, with your explanation, I can see that you can mean it that way.

 

The WORD 'passover' didn't exist then, but the OBSERVANCE did, & in Greek it was called pascha, the word Luke (and JESUS) used for it, & p'sach in Hebrew, the word GOD used for it in speaking to Moses. Easter didn't exist then, under any other name.

 

Well, the KJV IS a Bible version; it's not "THE" Bible. Notice I also say "NASV", not "NASB" as it's a version as well. And yes, "KJB" is associated with the false KJVO myth.

 

Let me say again that I'm dead-set against the KJVO MYTH, not the KJV itself. However, it becomes necessary to point out some of the KJV's errors to destroy the KJVO assertion that the KJV is perfect. That makes us Freedom Readers appear to be anti-KJV. While I use the KJV & AV 1611 only for study, I consider it to be as valid an English Bible translation as any other.

ALL translations have human error. We must not forget that all Bible translations, any language, are products of imperfect men handling God's perfect word.

 

Passover didn't exist then any more than Easter didn't exist then. No point in talking you about it. You don't get it, and don't want to get it, because it harms your rant about Easter. Neither the names Easter nor Passover existed when Luke wrote about the OBSERVANCE (which had existed since God gave it to Moses). However, the word Easter did exist in the old English language at least as early circa AD 990 (over 500 years before the word Passover existed), referring to the OBSERVANCE in the Wessex Gospels.

 

In your lingo then, do you believe translations are not Bibles?

 

What evidence do you have that the AV translators did not profess to be Christians?

 

The translators were more linguistically qualified than any other group of translators before or since. They were godly men. Some were pastors, some missionaries, some evangelists, others professors in Bible colleges. All were in the gospel ministry. All had repudiated Rome. All were Bible scholars in their own right, even apart from their linguistic skills. Some knew the biblical languages since childhood.

 

You do not prove your assertions to be true.

How was it godly for the KJV translators to be involved in persecuting others for their professed beliefs?
Several of the KJV translators were members of the High Commission Court that persecuted professed believers.

Do you claim that it was godly for the Church of England makers of the KJV to accept the Church of England's doctrine of baptismal regeneration?

 

And it was then, as now, a separate observance from pascha/p'sach.

 

None are "THE" Bible. However all valid ones are the word of God.

 

I reckon they all SAID they were Christians. However, one must wonder if a drunk or members of the sinister Star Chamber or Court Of High Commission actually WERE Christians. (Of course, JESUS is the Judge of their status with Him.)

 

The Kjv English rendering clearly has in mind though God and savior jesus are not the same person here!

 

"You do not prove your assertions to be true."

Not what I asked. "Are they not Bibles," is what I asked. You seem to admit they are, though being somewhat equivocal about it.

Yes, it is Jesus who knows their hearts and is their judge. I didn't ask you to look into their hearts, just whether or not they professed to be Christians, which you initially said they did not.

 

Saved and now also in the process of of being saved

 

The Nkjv is superior to the kjv!

 

Its the Kjvo casting doubts upon all other English translations!

 

We ALL here agree with that!

 

Actually, the Nas/Esv/Nkjv all used formal translation principles, even more so then the Kjv did!

 

They still though translated in regards to Anglican beliefs in places, see Baptism!