Let's look at the evidence

I praise your courage to pursue and defend the truth. As you may have found, I have rather sided KJVO's even though I didn't agree with them completely.
I don't credit the Blank Endorsement unto KJV, without checking word by word, but still find it is the best translation.
Throughout my study I have found and concluded the followings:

1) KJV contains the problem with Language Update.

2) KJV contains some errors in addition to minor scribal errors, a few of which relates even to the doctrinal issues, which I don't want to reveal at this stage.

3) Without KJV, many believers would have not learned about 1 John 5:7, Acts 12:4, Eph 3:9, Matt 15:8, Acts 8:37, Daniel 9:26, 3:25, Isaiah 53:10, Genesis 37:28, and many, many more.. Therefore I believe KJV not only is the best among hundreds of translations, but also has made the most contribution for the Christian believers during the past 400 years. Where were the ancestors of the MV's during the period?

4)KJV is better and more accurate than any other translation in English and maybe even the ones in all the other languages.

5) Pointing out the minor errors, scribal errors during the past 400 years seems rather to be childish criticism.

6) Translation is the area and the field where the Holy Spirit is working actively, even today.
If KJV is perfect, there is no need for anyone to translate the Bible in this era, but I find the need there. HS is eager to teach us the Truth as long as we obey Him. All the problems related to Translation of Bible reveals how lazy our generation is, as the Laodiceans.

7)As the broken clock can hit the exact time once or twice a day, MV's can make sense sometimes. For example, even though I have not made complete study yet and need some further investigation, KJV/TR may have little ground in Rev 17:8 ( Kaiper estin might have problem with spacing as it changes into Kai-parestai).

8) What I mentioned in 2) are more significant ones. For example, Luke 6:1 has Sabbatow Deutero-Prowtow. Many MV's translate this simply Sabbath because W-H-NA omitted these words " Deutero-Prowtow, but KJV reflected it as the second sabbath after the first. Majority texts and Ephraemi Codex contain it.
KJV translated it as the second Sabbath after the first.
However, this is wrong or poor translation because the translation doesn't let us know the full meaning of Deutero-Prowtow. If we understand the real meaning of it, we are blessed.

The correct translation of it is " The Second First Sabbath" as the Greek Word is.

In order to know the truth of The Second First Sabbath, we must understand what is the First-First Sabbath. The first-first sabbath was the regular sabbath right after the Passover( which was in the first month), and the next day was the Day of Firstfruits on which the Priest had to shake the sheaf of the Firstfruits(Lev 23:11), which symbolize the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Until that time no one was allowed to harvest or eat the corns there( Lev 23:15). After the Day of Firstfruits the Israelites were allowed to start the harvest. This is the era when the believers can enjoy the peace because of the Redemption by Jesus after His resurrection, as long as they walk with and are in Jesus Christ.

The Disciples happened to pluck the ears of corn on the second-first sabbath after this Day of Firstfruits, while they were walking along with Jesus.
John Nelson Darby translated this correctly and the details can be found on the preface of his translation.
There are some more issues to be considered in KJV.

9) Again, I would say KJV has some errors, but contributed a lot in many doctrinal issues, and is based on the correct texts/manuscripts, translated by the most reliable scholars at that time, more accurate than any other translation.
We can benefit from it the more than from any other translation.

Nevertheless I don't credit the blank endorsement to it as Holy Spirit asks me to be vigilant all the time.

God will continue to bless His people who read this KJV and practice as it teaches, obeying His Words, until He comes.

 

Strange! A thread that needed to be hijacked for a legitimate reason and in fact was, over the prayer request regarding a daughter, did not 'stay' hijacked, yet many threads here on the BB manage to become hijacked without any reason, each and every day. And in accordance with the OP and topic heading, there is plenty of 'evidence' for this. Amazing!

Ed

 

Eliyahu, I discovered years ago during an argument over "Easter" in the KJV, about the Sabbaths. I am happy you mention this, since it was part of the legend that Jesus was crucified on a Friday.

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH...

I am amazed that Christians of normal intelligence would continue to believe KJVO because there's simply no Scriptural evidence to support such a view. This is why I remind people that they can limit their Bible usage to the KJV while not wearing the dead bird of the KJVO myth around their necks.

But we have some gents who say they have evidence to support KJVO. However, I've heard that before, and their "evidence" has consisted of some quote from some goofy book or a recitation of the "preservation" verses. Since the gents here know about that, but claim to have real evidence, I would like to see it. After all, I am anxious to do the right thing, even if my long-held anti-KJVOism views were to be proven wrong. But in reality, I doubt if that will happen, as the KJVO crowd has been unsuccessfully searching for answers for over 50 years.

 

Maybe we're all growing up a little.

 

Roby, thats blasphemous.......

 

My stance may sound odd. Apparently there are too much in KJVO, but I mentioned many verses where only KJV preserved the truth. The problem with KJVO is that they try to force the people credit the blank endorsement to KJV.

 

I don't think it's a bit odd...your stance is based upon what you've found to be evidence, and not based upon guesswork, as is the case with the advocates of the KJVO doctrine.

 

And Alexandrianism.

 

OK AA, I have a question.....

Is there anyone on this board who has claimed that the alexandrian manuscripts are perfect, or that the moderns texts are?

Or are they simply of the OPINION and CONVICTION that these manuscripts, since they ARE OLDER, should be trusted above more recent manuscripts?

What exactly is the problem you see with their CONVICTION, when they are not in any way attempting to force you to believe anything?

Or do you simply enjoy a cause to be ticked about?

 

Whats your point that codex siniaticus and codex vaticanus Have "ERRORS"! Oh my we have a winner! Ring those Bells! Praise the Lord! I Have a feeling that the truth has set him free!

 

And2532 I saw1492 the3588 woman1135 drunken3184 with1537 the3588 blood129 of the3588 saints,40 and2532 with1537 the3588 blood129 of the3588 martyrs3144 of Jesus:2424 and2532 when I saw1492 her,846 I wondered2296 with great3173 admiration.2295
Rev 17:7 And2532 the3588 angel32 said2036 unto me,3427 Wherefore1302 didst thou marvel?2296 I1473 will tell2046 thee4671 the3588 mystery3466 of the3588 woman,1135 and2532 of the3588 beast2342 that carrieth941 her,846 which hath2192 the3588 seven2033 heads2776 and2532 ten1176 horns.2768
Rev 17:8 The3588 beast2342 that3739 thou sawest1492 was,2258 and2532 is2076 not;3756 and2532 shall3195 ascend305 out of1537 the3588 bottomless pit,12 and2532 go5217 into1519 perdition:684 and2532 they that dwell2730 on1909 the3588 earth1093 shall wonder,2296 whose3739 names3686 were not3756 written1125 in1909 the3588 book975 of life2222 from575 the foundation2602 of the world,2889 when they behold991 the3588 beast2342 that3748 was,2258 and2532 is2076 not,3756 and yet2539 is.2076
Rev 17:9 And here5602 is the3588 mind3563 which hath2192 wisdom.4678 The3588 seven2033 heads2776 are1526 seven2033 mountains,3735, (3699) on1909 which846 the3588 woman1135 sitteth.2521 Evidence!

 

We do have a winner! Too bad the award was "The man who knew too little"

William, are you aware that EVERY MANUSCRIPT we have in our possession on this planet today has an error? The only other alternative is that one manuscript is perfect, which I would mean that the KJV ISNT perfect, cuz there is no manuscript which agrees with it.

Honestly, if you ever address Revelation 17:8, you will be forced to acknowledge one of two things:

1. The KJV is in error
2. EVERY MANUSCRIPT ON THE PLANET is in error.

Which do you choose?

 

We do have a winner! Too bad the award was "The man who knew too little"

William, are you aware that EVERY MANUSCRIPT we have in our possession on this planet today has an error? The only other alternative is that one manuscript is perfect, which I would mean that the KJV ISNT perfect, cuz there is no manuscript which agrees with it.

Honestly, if you ever address Revelation 17:8, you will be forced to acknowledge one of two things:

1. The KJV is in error
2. EVERY MANUSCRIPT ON THE PLANET is in error.

Which do you choose? </font>[/QUOTE]That's the whole point in a "Nut" shell! It either has errors or it dosen't! The Av 1611 dosen't! Sorry! I do have limitations unlike yourself! I am a Man not "Superman"!

 

It doesn't? Then I guess all the other editions of the KJV does?

Oh, and do you carry and read and use an actual 1611, or one of the imperfect other editions?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Let me get this straight....it is your testimony, WILLIAM, that EVERY MANUSCRIPT ON THIS PLANET is in error, and that God spoke his inspired word through ERASMUS in 1516 to add to the book of Revelation?

Do I understand you right, or not?

You could make this alot easier by choosing #1 or #2, and making it clear, rather than being evasive.

The only way around that is that the KJV is not in error, and there is a manuscript which supports the KJV. WOuld you please inform us of it? If not, you are left with #1 or #2, or else you must resort to dishonesty.

What say ye?

 

Let's translate that into English...

Mr. Correa, you're really out in left field here. There is absolutely nothing here that supports the KJVO myth. Even if you wrongly interpret the book of life in v. 8 to mean the King James Version of the Bible, there is still no scriptural proof to support the KJVO myth. This is nothing but more spin and guesswork from the KJVO side.

Mr. Correa, as always you utterly fail in your feeble attempts to provide the evidence you falsely claim is there. NOT ONE SINGLE VERSE IN THE BIBLE, IN ANY VERSION, SUPPORTS THE KJVR ANY OTHER "ONLY" MYTH. Your feeble attempts to support the KJVo myth with Scripture constantly show how foolish the KJVO claim really is!

 

Let's translate that into English...

Mr. Correa, you're really out in left field here. There is absolutely nothing here that supports the KJVO myth. Even if you wrongly interpret the book of life in v. 8 to mean the King James Version of the Bible, there is still no scriptural proof to support the KJVO myth. This is nothing but more spin and guesswork from the KJVO side.

Mr. Correa, as always you utterly fail in your feeble attempts to provide the evidence you falsely claim is there. NOT ONE SINGLE VERSE IN THE BIBLE, IN ANY VERSION, SUPPORTS THE KJVR ANY OTHER "ONLY" MYTH. Your feeble attempts to support the KJVo myth with Scripture constantly show how foolish the KJVO claim really is! </font>[/QUOTE]Show me evidence that there are no ERRORS in the MV's! And then "TRY" and show EVIDENCE that thre are Errors in the KJB! then Repent!

 

Sorry, Mr. Correa...your "evidence" is more guesswork. We asked what a propellor is, & you're trying to tell us how to build an airplane. More to come after church.

 

Show me a quote from anybody anywhere on this board who has asserted that the MVs have no errors.

William, if you are going to continue to avoid answering honest questions, continue to post false accusations against others, and continue to lie about what others have said and what they believe, maybe it is time for you to leave the forum before your testimony is so seriously damaged that you will no longer be useful to Christ.

One again, william, you have managed to misstate the issue. The issue is not that there are errors in the KJV.
William, this is going to sound harsh but I mean you no harm. I am simply making an observation, not an attack, but from your posting, your inability to answer simple questions, your inability to understand what others have posted, and your inability to understand the cut and pastes that you post I am beginning to suspect that . If so this is probably not a good area of discussion for you insofar that it is highly technical and requires considerable study and education to understand the salient points under discussion. Perhaps it would be better for everyone if you just bowed out of the forum. </font>[/QUOTE]Not a chance if Got myself in a ditch I will get myself out! with a little help from God!You might be a little bit retarded because you say that every wind of doctorine is what God teaches! And Thats not RIGHT! By this Stupid Quote"The issue is that other versions are just as much the word of God as the KJV is". You Have Sold out and are A Cop out to the world "Woe unto you when people speak well of you for my name sake for so did the False prophets"! Repent and turn back to tradition as the early church fathers did whe the Devil came in like a flood but the Lord Raised up a Stndard Against them the KJB Bud! Quit Hidding Behind the KJB and defending the NASB! If that is not beeing two faced then I dont Know what is ! your jus t MADD cause " you Know Not What ye Worship"!