an actual 1769 Oxford error

The sad thing is this...

All who are looking for errors in the KJV (no matter what year) are going to find them. Because they want to find them. They want to discredit the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the written Word of God.

 

I simply cannot let this stand. This is a slap in the face of every orthodox Christian belief and fundamentalism.

The Holy Spirit moved the AV1611 translators to give a perfect Bible is against every bit of the doctrine of inspiration I can think of. A person who holds such an UNORTHODOX belief is so sadly warped in doctrine that I cannot believe it would be posted here.

Maybe on the "Other Religions" forum it would fit, for it is NOT biblical.

People whine and say they are KJVonly but not lunatic ruckmanite extreme to believe in re-inspiration in English by the Spirit in 1611 by a bunch of paedo-baptizing Anglicans. And here we have an avowed KJVonly who is honest enough to admit belief in that false doctrine.

Sad. This is a direct attack on the precious Doctrine of Inspiration and I expect a full apology for posting such false teaching on the BB. </font>[/QUOTE]I'll pray about it! </font>[/QUOTE]Well I prayed About it And I plead the Blood Of Jesus and will not Apologize for my comment. I did not blaspheme the Holy Spirit and will not bow to any Modern Versions ever! Mark My Words!

 

I respectfully disagree. THe sad thing is this:

Those who damn the Modern Versions damn
the very Written Words of God, the Holy Bible.
My Written WOrds of God, the Holy Bible are
found in the HCSB = Christian Standard Bible
/Holman, 2003/ ) written in 21st century
English.

BTW, I define 'Modern Version' to mean any
Bible translated into Modern English
and/or any Bible translated in or since
1700. As such, the KJV1769 Edition, in
common use among KJVOs, is A MODERN VERSION.
The KJB is a MV!
Those who damn the MVs are also damning the KJB

Same comment, you bow to a Modern Version:
the KJV1769 Edition. Turn back to the true
word of God, the KJV1611 Edition.
(and today only as a special bonus:
you never again have to use the 'J' key
on your keyboard to qutoe the scriptures )

\o/ Praise Iesus, Sonne of God! \o/

 

Lets look at that Ed...

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Daniel 3:25 He exclaimed, "Look! I see four men, not tied, walking around in the fire unharmed; and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."

KJV
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.


NOpe, Jesus only had one Father. I'll stick with the KJV

 

Same comment, you bow to a Modern Version:
the KJV1769 Edition. Turn back to the true
word of God, the KJV1611 Edition.
(and today only as a special bonus:Qoute by Ed Edwards
you never again have to use the 'J' key
on your keyboard to qutoe the scriptures )

\o/ Praise Iesus, Sonne of God! \o Who is Iesus ?and did you blaspheme? I Know you didn' mean to!

 

You have a Second Milinnium BC pagan king spouting
correct 3ed Millinniam AD theology.
There is something wrong with this.
This could never be a good transaltion

 

Daniel 3:25 He exclaimed, "Look! I see four men, not tied, walking around in the fire unharmed; and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."
Bro. Ed can you explain? Every one else has tried to but I wanted to hear your Explanation

 

Here is Daniel 3:25 from the KJV1769 with Strong's numbers:

Dan 3:25 He answered6032 and said,560 Lo,1888 I576 see2370
four703 men1400 loose,8271 walking1981 in the midst1459
of the fire,5135 and they have383 no3809 hurt;2257
and the form7299 of1768 the fourth7244 is like1821
the Son1247 of God.426

Here is the 426 entry from THE STRONGEST
STRONGS:

lah, God,
in the singular usually the true God, but see Da 4:8,
Dan 6:7 for a pagan god; gods, in the plural

translated:
God/god - 81 times
gods - 14 times.

Thus a decision was made by some translators
to put the Jewish Oracles of God into
the mouth of a Pagan King;
by other translators not NOT put the
Jewish Oracles of God into the mouth
of a Pagan King.

It is a matter of opinion as to which is
correct. I will NOT accept that it gives the
maker of either of the two assumptions a
MORAL HIGHGROUND.

 

Does anyone wonder why some churches are taking the title "Baptist" out of their name?

Rob

 

William S. Correa: //Who is Iesus ?//

I know 100 professional running backs who would love
to have one of the holes in your knowledge about the KJB
in their opponents line

'Iesus' is the name whereby we must all be saved,
according to the REAL KJB, the KJV1611 Edition
(not the upgraded Modern Version, the KJV1769 Edtion
used by most KJVOs).

Iesus appears in the KJV1611 Edition New Testament 981
times in 940 verses.
Jesus does not appear in the KJV1611 Edition New Testament.

Mark 1:1 (KJV1611 Edition):
The beginning of the Gospel of Iesus Christ, the Sonne of God,

BTW, 'Iesus' 'sonne' and 'God' appear in 23 verses of the
Real KJB, the KJV1611 Edition.

 

Heb 4:14 (KJV1611 Edition):

Seeing then that wee haue
a great high Priest, that is passed
into the heauens,
Iesus the Sonne of God,
let vs hold fast our profession.

Praise be to Iesus, Sonne of God

Notice the Baptist wavey:

never he ever have
two feet off the ground at the same time;
never does he wave both arms at once

 

so, let me get this straight, Ed...

Jesus Christ is not the Son of the Living God?

 

The Logical Error of
a non sequitur
is never a good debating techinque.

I take it then you yield the debate
to me?

 

I am not debating the Sonship of my Lord and Savior. It is my belief and conviction that Jesus Christ is and always has been the Son of the Living God.

 

The Scripture says:

Mat 16:16 (KJV1611 Edition):
And Simon Peter answered, and said,
Thou art Christ the sonne of the liuing God.

Mat 16:16 (nKJV):
Simon Peter answered and said,
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Mat 16:16 (NLT):
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah,
the Son of the living God."

Note 'Messiah' is an English word
that comes from Hebrew word meaning
"anointed one of God".
'Christ' is an English word that comes
from the Greek meaning
"anointed one of God".
To avoid being antisemetic (and in hope
our nation will survive the Tribualtion
Period at the Sheep and Goat nation
judgement /see Matthew 25/ ) I prefer
the Hebrew term over the Greek term.
The office of Iesus, Blessed Lord and
Savior, remains the same, whatever the
title given him.

 

Apparenly this king lived
about 550BC to 450BC so was a
'Zeroth Millinnium BC pagan king'.

 

This may be true to a certain extent, but I think many people are honestly searching for the truth and if there are variations between source documents and translations, it certainly does not hurt to note those and possibly provide corrections in later editions.

After all this is how the KJV1969 became a good translation; through the process of fixing translational or printing problems in earlier versions. .. just part of the process of translation.

 

I'm not trying to debate you here standingfirminChrist---just trying to understand what's being discussed.

What gave you the impression that Ed had indicated that Jesus was not the Son of the Living God in the first place?

I have not seen anything in his posts that indicate this.

Just curious.

By the way, for all of us who are debating, just because a verse in a version may be found to be missing or missing words does NOT mean that the overall doctrine of the Bible changes. The KJVO groups that list what they call are errors in the NIV do this. They will call it a mistake and say that the NIV leaves out the word "Lord" so many times, when the NIV simply uses another English word that means exactly the same thing.

Or, if a verse is missing entirely, this may mean that the best manuscripts do not contain that verse--it certainly does not mean that there are any doctrinal changes to the Bible if a scribe added a repetative sentence in a gospel to try to harmonize it with another gospel. At least the NIV and many other modern versions are honest enough to place a footnote saying that certain manuscripts contain or are lacking in certain phrases. To me, this is the most accurate way of presenting the translation to the people to study.

Besides, none of these ever have been proven to change doctrine, regardless of what the KJVO writers will say.

 

Printing problems and grammatical errors are not the problem. Many are changing entire meanings of verses, omiting verses and in some instances... entire passages.

I guess I would not be so upset with the changes if it wree not for the fact that many verses that claim the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, blood, sin and judgment are removed altogether. Why?

They say 'some ancient manuscripts omit this verse.' But just because an ancient manuscript omits a verse does not necessarily mean that that manuscript was original.

Also, if the supposed translators of the 'ancient manuscripts' were not truly right with God and did not want judgment for certain sins, it would shed light on why some verses are changed or removed altogether.

Let's look at John 5:4...

John 5:4 For the aungel `of the Lord cam doun certeyne tymes in to the watir, and the watir was moued; and he that first cam doun in to the sisterne{Note: that is, a watir gederid togidere, hauinge no fiyss.} aftir the mouynge of the watir, was maad hool of what euer sijknesse he was holdun.

Many versions, such as the Complete Jewish Bible and the Holman Christian Study Bible omit this verse.

When read with the story, the verse sheds light on what the man was there for and what happened at a certain season.

Omitted?

 

Ed had made this statement...

In saying that, I get the impression that he is saying we are wrong for reading the 1769 version and Jesus Christ is not who saves us, but rather Iesus Christ.

Now, I have a 1611, and a 1769, but I believe the Jesus Christ of the latter is the same Iesus of the former. Yet the statement made is saying the 1769 Jesus is not the true Christ... thereby refuting that precious name I hold dear as being God's Son.