The Holy Bible AV1611

william,

stick to your convictions.

 

One thing I have learned....stating that I will never change my beliefs is the first sign of indoctrination. Every honest christian would be GLAD to change their belief in light of UNDENIABLE FACTS.

What if evidence was uncovered that proved Jesus did not rise from the dead? What if it was TRUE? Because of my beliefs, I know this to be impossible, but would the real God want us to believe a lie? NO!!! I know that I do not have it all figured out, and I pray that I am constantly changed by the Spirit to conform to TRUTH, not claim I know it all.

You have denied truth, and stuck to tradition. You have stated you will do so in the future. It doesnt matter WHAT THE TRUTH IS, you will defend the KJV.

What part of that is biblical?

You cant answer for ONE READING, you constantly did everything you could to close threads, and you have the gall to claim you know something about truth?

You are definately listening to a Spirit, but one this is certain: Your Spirit is not that taught in the KJV. That is a simple fact. I am sorry if that offends you, but you cant even defend your stance from the translation you claim is inerrant!

Your posing here is done. Move along.

 

It sounds as if your faith is actually in your on "beliefs". Please say it ain't so.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2Thess. 2:15

!!ach!!

 

was looking for that verse, AF.

was also thinking of Paul's writing in Galatians 1:8 - 10

 

Guesswork.

 

Mr. Correa, you've blown it. In another thread, you state Erasmus' typo was given to him by GOD. How can you prove that? I can say with equal truth that God gave the words to the translators of the NIV, NASV, or any other valid version, and you cannot prove me wrong.

Speaking of the AV 1611...Whenever you post Scripture, it's NOT from the AV 1611, but from a later edition. That's evident from the spelling, etc. THEY ARE NOT ALIKE! So why kid yourself that you're an AV man?

Besides that, you haven't presented one bleep of SCRIPTURE supporting your KJVO myth. Like other KJVOs, you're just guessing.

 

I may be reading this wrong, but the impression I get is that Mr. Correa is making an attempt to apologize for things he may have done and said on this board, while maintaining that he still holds to the KJVO belief. I don't have a problem with anyone being KJVO to the point that the KJV is the only Bible they will use - that is their own decision to make. However, the problem with many KJVO believers is that they try to force their preference for the KJV down the throats of everyone else - often claiming that if the Bible version isn't the KJV it isn't the word of God. This is blasphemy. I have a BIG problem with anyone blaspheming the word of God.

If Mr. Correa wishes to hold to his KJVO beliefs without trying to force those beliefs on others, then he should not be condemned. After all, the Bible version we use is between us and God.

I believe the Holy Spirit will lead true Christians away from versions that do not accurately convey God's word. Such versions would include the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Clear Word Translation of the Seventh Day Adventists - these "versions" were "translated" with the intent of making the Bible conform to errant beliefs. I do not believe for a second that just because one Bible version doesn't use the exact words used in another version, that this disqualifies it from being the word of God. If we all held to that belief, we would all have to learn Hebrew and Greek and go back to the original languages.

Folks, let's give Mr. Correa a chance to show us what he rally means by his post. If I am wrong about his intent, then the truth will be shown in Mr. Correa's posts. If I am right, we should all be willing to forgive him. God does not rememeber the sins of the saved, and we shouldn't either.

 

William,

You do understand that what you are reading from is not the 1611 KJV. You can get a 1611 reprint for around $30.00. Wal-Mart Online was selling them. The 1611 KJV differs from your KJV is certain places thus proving the KJV is not perfect.

Matthew 12:23 Is this the son of David? 1611

Matthew 12:23 Is not this the son of David? 1769


Is your faith in the KJV? If the KJV is proven in error does it destroy your faith in God? I hope that your faith in Christ is stronger than to allow an English translation of the Holy Scriptures to uproot you. The KJV is a fine translation but it does not contain a perfect text without errors.

The KJV was never viewed as perfect. Simply studying the history of the KJV proves my point.

The KJV translators had this to say:

“Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and auow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee haue seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee vttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by euery Translator with the like grace, nor peraduenture so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, euery where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verum vbi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee haue made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and louely, though hee haue some warts vpon his hand, yea, not onely freakles vpon his face, but also skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it.”

.....
“Neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it [the work of translation]...[nor] were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps.... Neither did wee thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latine, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to reuise that which we had done, and to bring backe to the anuill that which we had hammered: but hauing and vsing as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coueting praise for expedition, wee haue at the length, through the good hand of the Lord vpon vs, brought the worke to that passe that you see.”

....

“Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled...[that] it hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, heere and there, to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinal points that concerne saluation (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearfulnesse would better beseeme vs than confidence. . .and to resolue upon modestie....There be many words in Scripture, which be neuer found there but once. ..there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves...so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (euen in thejudgement of the iudicious) questionable, can be no lesse than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures; so diuersitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded....They that are wise, had rather haue their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other.”

 

I honestly have no idea where you got that, but rest assured, it is incorrect. Allow me to make it clear, BECAUSE OF MY BELIEFS, which if you read any of my posts you would know that I am not one to say "I believe" to anything I have not fully researched. Therefore, because I believe that Jesus rose from the dead, I know it is not possible for there to be any evidence that he in fact did not. However, what if I was wrong? What if there was a true salvation that was not Jesus? How idiotic would I be to be so proud as to reject it, and be damned? This is exactly the statement I use often when witnessing to atheists and many other religions. I listen to them, let them make their case, and I respect it. Then they are more than willing to do the same.

So far, my version of the truth has convinced a few, and they are still left at zero. This type of witnessing is lost on this IFB "us against the world" attitude. More often than not, opposing beliefs are ridiculed, and almost never understood. Most study mormonism for avenues to debate it.....I study to try and understand why they believe as they do, and use that to bring them to the truth. Should I really be worried that I will be swayed by studying another religion? Is my God really that weak? NO! I have enough faith to allow my beliefs to be constantly challenged, which ensures that I know why I believe what I believe.

Most of our young people still only know what we told them to believe. Why are we so afraid to let them know WHY? Why do we say "you must believe this way or you are wrong?" There are some UNDENIABLE TRUTHS in the bible, and I agree that we must keep those sacred in order to be able to differentiate between Christianity and the world, but things like KJVO overstep the bounds. And on top of that, its proponents refuse to allow this belief, which they claim is bound to all men, to be questioned honestly.

Exactly what is Christian about that? What would the Bereans have to say about such willful ignorance? Its ASININE!

In short, no, I dont have faith in my beliefs. I have faith in what I cannot see, but I KNOW WHAT I CAN SEE. I can see God's word, and I can see the incredible amount of evidence that proves Jesus is the Christ. I also see the evidence of other beliefs of mine, one of which is to reject KJVO. I dont need to have faith in what I CAN SEE, I have faith in that which I CANNOT SEE. Honestly, simple exegesis of Hebrews should lead even the simplest Christian to the same doctrine.

My rant is over....moving on to the rest....

Yea, and which traditions were those? Lets try and use scripture in its context next time, shall we? There is no need to resort to such tactics.

Wanna try and show me where they were talking about "traditions" or "beliefs" which were not found either from scripture or from an apostle? Here, we are talking about a doctrine not found in scripture ANYWHERE, but also in direct opposition to KNOWN FACTS!

Forgive me if I fail to see the connection.

 

Inregards to KJVOism

How is it unbiblical ????

And

Lets think about this for a second? Why would this brother even make a statement like this? Its because MVO'ist say everything is the truth how are they to know what the truth is. All MV's contradict each other at some place where as all KJV's never contradicts themself.

 

Lets think about this for a second? Why would this brother even make a statement like this? Its because MVO'ist say everything is the truth how are they to know what the truth is. All MV's contradict each other at some place where as all KJV's never contradicts themself. </font>[/QUOTE]Yours might be the most foolish statement to date. The KJV never contradicts itself? This statement shows you are completely ignorant regarding the KJV and its history. Its pitiful to attempt to defend a position you know so little about!

However, I think it is obvious that you have nothing to refute my statment, save for the good ole false information.

What misinformation will you answer this post with?

 

If you truly believed in the AV1611 mr correa would you not quote from it? If your view is correct any change from the following would defile God's perfect word.

And who is hee that will harme you, if ye bee followers of that which is good? But and if ye suffer for righteousnes sake, happy are ye, and be not afraid of their terrour, neither be troubled: But sanctifie the Lord God in your hearts, & be ready alwayes to giue an answere to euery man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekenesse and feare: Hauing a good conscience, that whereas they speake euill of you, as of euill doers, they may bee ashamed that falsly accuse your good conuersation in Christ. For it is better, if the will of God be so, that yee suffer for well doing, then for euill doing. For Christ also hath once suffered for sinnes, the iust for the vniust, that he might bring vs to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.
- 1 Peter 3:13-18

[ May 18, 2006, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Simple, he has absolutely no clue what on earth he is talking about.

Both of our posts will be answered with more riddles, followed closely by incoherent clauses somehow smashed together.

Somewhere in there, KJVO will die a little more!

 

Has God's Word been Abused?

You bet. Look about the garbage some knee-jerk reactionary fundamentalists like to say about God's preserved Word for the English-speaking peoples, the NIV.

 

Would it not be unbiblical to imply that believers should accept a KJV-only view when it has not been demonstrated that the KJV-only view is taught in the Scriptures?

The KJV-only view seems to imply that the interpreting/translating of Church of England scholars in 1611 is in effect greater in authority than the preserved words of the prophets and apostles in the original languages that were given by inspiration.

A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611 and would be true for believers that speak other languages as well as those who speak English.