Hasn't the KJV been updated in thousands of Places?

Windork stated a position. Effectively he stated that the KJV was perfect with no need for correction and that you are going to hell if you don't believe that. That would seem to be somewhat relevant to whether the KJV has been updated or not.

If so then a response is in order, right?

 

"when good threads go bad..."

Sounds like a Fox program.

My bad if I contributed to the melee...I tend to respond with humor when I see venom. I have the spiritual gift of sarcasm.

 

The KJV is not perfect, but the KJB is perfect.

 

And when you show a scriptural or historical proof for that then you will cease to be the purveyor of a false doctrine.

Until then, the 10's, 100's, or even 1000's of changes made to the AV since originally published are very much a strong evidence against its supposed perfect preservation.

 

That is why you listen to this man because I realized that he is anti-KJV man. I read his book and found his book is misinformative. I do not think he is scholarly. I learned that one man confronted him and asked him some questions, but James was incapable to answer to him.

KJVO posters do not have to provide you some evidences because they know that MV supporters including you pointed off answers. I read your posts in other website, but I did not see you directly and straightly answer to KJVO posters' questions there.

 

For the book of 2 Peter, D. A. Waite listed two changes that affect the sound [those two have a * before them].

1864 *2 Pet. 1:4 you might be [1611] ye might be [today's KJV]

1865 2 Pet. 1:5 besides [1611] beside [today's]

1866 +2 Pet. 1:9 see far [1611]
see afar [today's]

1867 2 Pet. 1:12 stablished [1611]
established [today's]

1868 2 Pet. 1:15 you may be [1611]
ye may be [today's]

1869 2 Pet. 2:5 eight person [1611] eighth person [today's]

1870 2 Pet. 2:20 then the beginning [1611] than the beginning [today's]

1871 2 Pet. 2:21 then after they [1611]
than, after they [today's]

1872 2 Pet. 3:4 fro [1611] from [today's]

1873 *2 Pet. 3:10 burnt up [1611] burned up [today's]

In Waite's listing, 2 Peter 3:10 is only #406 while my list includes 1872 changes before it.

 

Askjo, I have seen you do this before. You claim something, and provide nothing to support it. Can I not also claim that I know you beat your wife? Should I be allowed to discredit you simply on my word? OF COURSE NOT! That would be unfair, and dishonest.

Now, to clarify, I do like White's book, because I feel that he gives the INFORMATION and lets you make up your own mind. He doesnt just say "The KJV is wrong", but he engages is debate and discussion to explain WHY he believes the KJV is wrong in some places.

Who were these people who stumped him, and what were the questions? I am not asking to defend him, but rather to make sure the questions get answered! I couldn't care less about his reputation here, but if you have a question that has yet to be answered, post it here and I will do the research. Otherwise, if you are not able to produce these questions nor their originator, then it is clear that this situation is a fabrication or exaggeration.

KJVO posters do not have to provide you some evidences because they know that MV supporters including you pointed off answers. I read your posts in other website, but I did not see you directly and straightly answer to KJVO posters' questions there. </font>[/QUOTE]Interesting, as I have never seen anyone complain of this. Only thing I can think of is the normal KJVO MO, which is to ignore a question, and instead demand an answer for their question. I have ignored many questions in that context. However, if you feel there are any important questions that have been addressed to me that I have ignored, post them, and I will directly address them immediately. Can you say the same? If so, then read on.....

Back to the subject, I have asked you before, and so have others, to explain how the KJV is perfect when there have been the vast number of changes listed here by Logos and many others.

If the KJV was perfect, then why was there a need for ANY KIND of revision? Why did God allow errors in either the printing, or just simple mistakes by the KJV translators, or mistakes by the later editors of the current KJVs?

Also, you say "The KJV isnt perfect, but the KJB is".

Please explain the difference between the KJV and the KJB, and why one has errors and one doesnt.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You unbelieving jack legs will one day stand before an HOLY and RIGHTEOUS GOD and Give account of how you Alexanderian Cultists have systematically tried to discredit the KJV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only if God said somewhere in the Bible that it is wrong to consider whether a 16th century Catholic and 17th century Anglicans were perfect in their textual criticism and language translation.

__________________________________________________

This is the kind of exchange someone (Pastor Bob) has pointed out earlier. One man makes stupid remarks and another makes equally stupid remarks.

The first quote above showsa complete lack of charity. The second quote above shows acomplete lack of intelligence. To the first I must ask; Do you honestly believe you will catch any flies with that vinegar? And to the second I must ask; Do you honestly believethat the KJV is the ONLY English version "tainted" by Catholicsand Anglicans? Bear in mind that Vaticanus came from the Catholicsand Westcott/Hort were BOTH Anglicans.

And Ed Edwards would say....TEE HEE!

 

Actually, I dont see any lack of intelligence in the 2nd quote.

His is a legitimate stance: The first mans claim has no scriptural standing, so therefore if it also has no factual standing, should be discarded.

His angry outburst directly following the disproval of his evidence is in itself evident that he had no idea what he was talking about, and was incapable of real discussion. Otherwise, he would have explained himself.

Instead, he choose to explode.

If this were the first time, it would be OK, but it's actually the rule, rather than the exception.

 

You must first join the Bible of the month club Which I'm not a Member of!

 

Do what? If you think that then perhaps it is your own beam that you should deal with.

Lack of intelligence? Please feel free to prove that to any degree.

No. And perhaps if you were "intelligent" enough you would have seen the point I was making.

This guy suggested that anyone who questioned any of the words or potential translation/textual flaws in the KJV was going to hell. I responded that he would have to prove that God's Word somewhere affirmed the notion that genuine believers were not to question the work of men who held religious convictions very different from ours... and who quite possibly were not all saved. In any event, it is the responsibility of Christians to "prove all things"... that includes the scholarship behind the KJV.

If you were "intelligent" enough, you would have remembered my numerous posts in threads where you were involved where I intimated that one's theology does not necessarily disqualify their language/textual scholarship.

FTR, I have used this term "intelligent" not because I literally question your intelligence but to make the point of how offensive it was for you to question my intelligence on the basis you did. I may not be intelligent by your standard... but it isn't evidenced by anything I wrote in this particular post.

And from my position, I can honestly accept that their work and this text may be valid or it may not... in spite of any doctrinal errors that those involved may have had. It is however inconsistent for a KJVO to make these points to suggest corruption on that basis when their own trusted documents are likewise associated.

FTR, I don't prefer CT based texts and versions. I use the NASB for cross reference but primarily use the KJV, NKJV, and occasionally the WEB.

 

I respectfully disagree. There was no discussion, no debate. There was no exchange of ideas. One man made an inaccurate claim, one which has been discussed here before, and rather than allow meaningful discussion (I saw nothing resembling malice in Logos' post) he simply ran away at the first sign of disagreement.

Bob, this post proves that it doesnt matter how nice you are, some just dont want their tradition to be questioned at all. The only evidence which matters is that which supports their position. The OP did exactly what I said: He made his claim, not caring whether it was true or not, and at the first sign of resistance, took his "ball" and went home.

True evidence, or misleading evidence, such as that above? Shouldnt every peice of misleading or incorrect evidence be discounted? What am I missing here?

Bob, I dont understand how this is not what Logos did. Yes, he said Waite's study was inaccurate, but he then did just what you asked, and showed some examples from his reserach.

What is it that you want us to do? Do you really not see a problem with these drive bys? Do you not feel that this is dishonest christian behavior? Those are both serious questions, I would like to know what you think. I am not asking for you to take a side on KJVO here, but merely "is posting misleading evidence then running away the second it is questioned dishonest christian behavior"?

Thanks! </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Yes and in my opinion and as much as I disagree with the doctrine of the Church of England and their history of persecution of non-Anglicans, this in reality IMO is one of the strengths of the CofE Authorised Version of the Bible:The King James Version of the Bible:

That over the centuries they (the CofE) have scrupulously made corrections and revisions to their First Edition AV removing human error from the text to make it as close to perfection (given the 17th century Jacobean/Elizabethan period English and Traditional type source text) as humanly possible.

Only the Latin Vulgate was cherished in like manner.

HankD