Search results

I agree they are almost identical except for the margin notes that sharply favored Sovereign Grace.

@SovereignGrace, here's one for you to ponder. At the time of the Reformation the Reformers created the Geneva Bible that leaned sharply toward the theme of Calvinism in it's marginal notes. The theme of Sovereign Grace was already alive through Augustine before Calvin laid out the principles...

We have no problem with the revision in 1769, the text is unaltered in meaning and doctrine from the original 1611. The problem is yours, and I suggest you just leave the 1611 Authorized KJV to us and use your modern versions.

So the Reformed say.

If you read up on the revision in 1769 there were printing errors in the original 1611 that were corrected. Updated spelling and punctuation and the italics were the main focus of the revision. The content is unchanged otherwise, the reason it's still the 1611 Authorized KJV.

No doctrine or Biblical theme has been changed in the 1769 revision of the 1611 Authorized KJV. That's why it's still called the 1611 KJV. If a direct change had taken place it would have been named the 1769 KJV.

Nothing can replace my 1611 KJV as far as I'm concerned, and if I can't believe it is the inspired Word of God, I can't trust it. But if you choose the modern versions then that's what you prefer.

The same way we initially do it today, interpreters. There are some organizations that are using interpreters to take the Gospel message to countries through the KJV translated in their language. Similar to the Reina-Valera with the Spanish.

https://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html

What the KJVO folks will stress is that the original 1611 KJV is so old it had to be revised for spelling, ect, and the words that are no longer in vocabulary. They believe all the effort in revisions, as the KJV needed, should be invested in the KJV only and the Alexandrian Text is not what...

We agree, that is what I've said here on BB the entire time I've been here. What I've been doing is giving a representation of the KJVO folks because I know them so well.

This Bible used by the Spanish is translated from the Textus Receptus the same as the KJV.

We have here in town many Spanish, and from our Church some Spanish believers created a sister Church to ours. They use the Reina-Valera which is the closest you can get (so they say) to the KJV.

Did the command to take the Gospel to the world end with the apostles? I don't think it did. So what do we English speaking people take to the world? What do our brothers in the UK take to the world, and what did they take to the world in the past? We take what we have from God. So what...

Ok, that's fine with me, K.

So every time a new modern version comes along or a revision is made in the existing, the KJVO folks, the outspoken ones, will double down on their belief we English speaking people have already been given what God wanted us to have shortly after the Reformation began.

The biggest problem the KJVO folks have is all the quarreling among the modern version holders with all their opinions on how the revisions of the modern version should have been dealt with and what the Scripture is actually saying and what precise words should be used. That would tempt the...

Yes, it's incredible the difference in Reformed Theology and Dispensationalism.

I would suggest you stick to your modern versions. There are extremists on both sides.

In 2019 when Pete Hegseth was working for Fox news, he was sent to Jerusalem to cover a story on the battle between the Judaists, Muslims, and Christians for Jerusalem. It's an interesting watch in what is exactly going on in Jerusalem. What I found the most interesting was Pete found several...