Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
If you work it carefully, you can use the
results of that for
a Doctor's Thesis (should you
seek a DDV /Doctor of Divinity/ ).
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
#2 Which KJV is your authority?
- Thread starter Ed Edwards
- Start date
results of that for
a Doctor's Thesis (should you
seek a DDV /Doctor of Divinity/ ).
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
Here is the thing, you accuse us KJVOs of a dividing spirit. When if we had our way every pastor would read from a KJV(one) Bible and the whole congregation would read from the same one. This sounds like unity to me.
If you had your way the pastor and his congregation would all have different bibles and that would definently cause confusion,for instance, suppose the pastor has an NIV and part of his congregation has a Living bible. This would cause a LOT of confusion dont try and tell me differently. And according to the Bible who is the author of confusion?
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
If you work it carefully, you can use the
results of that for
a Doctor's Thesis (should you
seek a DDV /Doctor of Divinity/ ).
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
No brother. As I have shown you, the "new Bibles" make Christians and disciples of our Lord. Please don't be guilty of calling something evil that God calls good. He says there is rejoicing in heaven when someone is saved... and millions are being saved with the use of MV's and Bibles translated from texts using the Alexandrian text type. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not calling them evil, you can get saved from a modern version. But God is NOT blessing them.Name one revival in the last 350 years that did not use the KJV.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
KJVBibleThumper: "And according to the Bible
who is the author of confusion?"
The Bible Doesn't say.
It does say that God is NOT the author of confusion.
What do you think "confusion" means?
I have the gift of Discernment.
The Gift of Discernment is a gift given by the
Holy Spirit to those in the Body of Christ whom He
sees needs it. It is a gift that i supranaturally know
if a thing is of God, of Satan, or just human.
The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) is of God.
The King James Version, 1873 Edition is of God.
KJVBibleThumper: "If you had your way the pastor and his congregation
would all have different bibles and that would definently cause
confusion,for instance, suppose the pastor has an NIV and
part of his congregation has a Living bible."
My church does that. We average 200 on Sunday Morning.
We baptize about 50 a year. We can be a successful church,
we are a successful church. The various versions are NOT a
problem, they lead to a more successful church.
Unless your church is more successful than mine, don't
bother to bring it up. My Pastor is 64 years old. HE has
memorized 100s of scriptures from the KJV1769.
When he reads from another version, he usually mentions
the KJV1769 reading of some terms.
KJVBibleThumper: "This would cause a LOT of confusion
dont try and tell me differently."
What you have called a curse is a blessing
What you have called black is white.
What you have called white is black.
who is the author of confusion?"
The Bible Doesn't say.
It does say that God is NOT the author of confusion.
What do you think "confusion" means?
I have the gift of Discernment.
The Gift of Discernment is a gift given by the
Holy Spirit to those in the Body of Christ whom He
sees needs it. It is a gift that i supranaturally know
if a thing is of God, of Satan, or just human.
The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) is of God.
The King James Version, 1873 Edition is of God.
KJVBibleThumper: "If you had your way the pastor and his congregation
would all have different bibles and that would definently cause
confusion,for instance, suppose the pastor has an NIV and
part of his congregation has a Living bible."
My church does that. We average 200 on Sunday Morning.
We baptize about 50 a year. We can be a successful church,
we are a successful church. The various versions are NOT a
problem, they lead to a more successful church.
Unless your church is more successful than mine, don't
bother to bring it up. My Pastor is 64 years old. HE has
memorized 100s of scriptures from the KJV1769.
When he reads from another version, he usually mentions
the KJV1769 reading of some terms.
KJVBibleThumper: "This would cause a LOT of confusion
dont try and tell me differently."
What you have called a curse is a blessing
What you have called black is white.
What you have called white is black.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
The revival in the American Methodist churches
of Southern Rohdesia (now Zimbabwe) under the leadership
of Johane Maranke.
This revival lead to the formation of the massive
African Apostolic Church that has
spread acroos much of Africa.
About the year KJVBibleThumper, the
Christian population of Africa exceeded
the Christian population of North America.
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
The revival in the American Methodist churches
of Southern Rohdesia (now Zimbabwe) under the leadership
of Johane Maranke.
This revival lead to the formation of the massive
African Apostolic Church that has
spread acroos much of Africa.
About the year KJVBibleThumper, the
Christian population of Africa exceeded
the Christian population of North America. </font>[/QUOTE]Give me the year and the version used, with the information regarding your source.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
The revival in the American Methodist churches
of Southern Rohdesia (now Zimbabwe) under the leadership
of Johane Maranke.
This revival lead to the formation of the massive
African Apostolic Church that has
spread acroos much of Africa.
About the year KJVBibleThumper, the
Christian population of Africa exceeded
the Christian population of North America. </font>[/QUOTE]Give me the year and the version used, with the information regarding your source. </font>[/QUOTE]Aparently this denomination is more
interested in helping people with AIDS
than informing folk what translation they
use.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Waiting.....
No brother. As I have shown you, the "new Bibles" make Christians and disciples of our Lord. Please don't be guilty of calling something evil that God calls good. He says there is rejoicing in heaven when someone is saved... and millions are being saved with the use of MV's and Bibles translated from texts using the Alexandrian text type. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not calling them evil, you can get saved from a modern version. But God is NOT blessing them.Name one revival in the last 350 years that did not use the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]I already did. The greatest movement of the gospel today is probably in China.
I even provided a link that shows that the currently used Chinese versions are based on the Critical Texts (you inaccurately call them Alexandrian due to being taught dishonest information).
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
As far as I know only one KJVO proponent on this board has ever had the courage to give his view and an answer to the question in the OP.
Bro Lacy says that the Oxford Edition of 1769 is his ultimate authority.
Right or wrong, at least he is man enough to say it.
Bro Lacy says that the Oxford Edition of 1769 is his ultimate authority.
Right or wrong, at least he is man enough to say it.
ScottJ referred to: "the Critical Texts (you inaccurately call them Alexandrian due to being taught dishonest information)."
Why would it be "dishonest information" when the current critical texts (regardless of the eclectic method used in arriving at their result) remain 99.5% in agreement with Westcott-Hort's 1881 text? As elsewhere noted, I have run an electronic comparison of NA27/UB4 vs WH to see this result; anyone else can easily do the same from publicly available sources.
Unless, of course, one were to claim that the W-H text itself was _not_ Alexandrian in character?
Why would it be "dishonest information" when the current critical texts (regardless of the eclectic method used in arriving at their result) remain 99.5% in agreement with Westcott-Hort's 1881 text? As elsewhere noted, I have run an electronic comparison of NA27/UB4 vs WH to see this result; anyone else can easily do the same from publicly available sources.
Unless, of course, one were to claim that the W-H text itself was _not_ Alexandrian in character?
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
Waiting..... </font>[/QUOTE]I suppose that I can take time off from my busy schedule to answer this.
The Bible I "thump" is my 1611 revised for modern spelling in 1769. If you want to bring up the "revisions" and so called "differences" between it and the 1611 feel free to.
KJVBibleThumper
New Member
No brother. As I have shown you, the "new Bibles" make Christians and disciples of our Lord. Please don't be guilty of calling something evil that God calls good. He says there is rejoicing in heaven when someone is saved... and millions are being saved with the use of MV's and Bibles translated from texts using the Alexandrian text type. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not calling them evil, you can get saved from a modern version. But God is NOT blessing them.Name one revival in the last 350 years that did not use the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]I already did. The greatest movement of the gospel today is probably in China.
I even provided a link that shows that the currently used Chinese versions are based on the Critical Texts (you inaccurately call them Alexandrian due to being taught dishonest information). </font>[/QUOTE]Where is the link? Ill look it up if you give it to me.
Already being discussed on page 2 of this thread
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1767/2.html#000026
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Waiting..... </font>[/QUOTE]The Bible I "thump" is my 1611 revised for modern spelling in 1769. If you want to bring up the "revisions" and so called "differences" between it and the 1611 feel free to.
At least you have the courage to admit which KJV you support.
Personally, I primarily use that version, as well as the KJV published by Oxford in 1762. I use the KJV updated in 1982 by Neslon quite a bit as well.
Say, we're almost the same!
[ August 24, 2004, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
That would probably be a good question to work
upon, were i going to do a DDiv* Thesis.
First i'd have to get a MDiv
*Doctor of Divinity
Come to think of it, there is a Free Will
Baptist College here in central Oklahoma
(and the HQ of the Free Well Baptist denomination. Nah, I'm to much into
Security of the Believer.
I'm really confused by the results here.
Consider this conversation:
Ed-----------------------------------------
KJV1611 by a 4-to-1. Why do many KJVO sites
speak of the AV1611 when they actually use
the KJV1769 edition?
-------------------------------------------
Michelle: "Because they are the same thing."
She must really believe that.
Personally I have two KJV1611s and
several KJV1769s. It is easy to set them
side by side and see the difference. But
this poster is on record saying she has
one and only one (and it is a KJV1769).
So she certainly has never set them side
by side and let God speak through them
to her.
Consider this converstation:
quote:
------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by KJVBibleThumper:
The Bible I "thump" is my 1611 revised for modern spelling in 1769. If you want to bring up the "revisions" and so called "differences" between it and the 1611 feel free to.
------------------------------------------------
Dr Bob: "Already being discussed on page 2 of this thread
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1767/2.html#000026
Say, Brother KJVBibleThumper, e-mail or PM me
your snail-mail addy. I'll send you my second
KJV1611 Edition. There are two reprints:
the Nelson (out of print, copies are available
on Amazon) and the Henderson (still in
print). This is good cause original print
KJV1611s are selling at around 200K$
Till they are set side-by-side, it is difficult
to compare them. Folks like Pastor Gail A.
Riplinger who compares the KJV1769 Modern
Version to other Modern Versions, she likes
to compare a word or a phrase. Often she
seems to overlook simple things like
the missing word (Maybe "Christ") is in
the earlier part of the verse or in
the verse following. She also likes to
seperate the pronoun from it's resolution.
I know the resolution of pronouns changes
the Eschatological doctrine if one is using
Daniel 9:27 as a template. The resolution
of the pronoun is done in the KJV1769
two different ways to make two different
eschatological Doctrines. (One doesn't even
need another MV to confuse things)
The two different doctrines both come from
the same KJV1769 by varing the resolution of
the pronoun in Daniel 9:27.
As going on in that thread, we see lot more
than mere spelling changes. Another thing
(probably not of consequence) is an alphabet
change. The KJV1611 "I" is split into a
KJV1769 "I" and "J". Yep, the "I" used to
do the work for what is now the vowel "I" and
the constant "J". (Interesting, in the American
Sign language the "J" sign is a moving "I"
sign.)
Another alphabet change is the "U" and the "V".
I always wondered why a "W" was called
a "double U" but looks like a double "V".
Well, when the current "U" looked loke our
current "V", the letter was doubled to make
a "double U". So yes, our "W" ("double U")
looks like our double V
Another alphabet change was the interior
"s" symbol which looks like our small "f"
but with just the left part of the cross bar.
That is usually easy to deal with because
it looks like a tall "s". The short "s"
was used to end a word, a short "s" or
captial "S" was used to start a word.
Archangel7
New Member
Here are some selected examples of the differences between the 1611 KJV and today's KJV:
"And she laid up his garment by her, until *her* lord came home." (Gen. 39:16, 1611 KJV)
"And she laid up his garment by her, until *his* lord came home." (Gen. 39:16, today's KJV)
Whose lord came home -- hers or his?
"And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the *names* of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." (Ex. 23:13, 1611 KJV)
"And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the *name* of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." (Ex. 23:13, today's KJV)
One name or many names?
"And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be *an unleavened cake* of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil." (Lev. 2:4, 1611 KJV)
"And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be *unleavened cakes* of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil." (Lev. 2:4, today's KJV)
How many unleavened cakes are required here? Just one? Or more than one?
"Even those that were numbered of them, throughout their families, by the *houses* of their fathers, were two thousand and six hundred and thirty." (Num 4:40, 1611 KJV)
"Even those that were numbered of them, throughout their families, by the *house* of their fathers, were two thousand and six hundred and thirty." (Num 4:40, today's KJV)
One house or many houses?
"O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deut. 5:29, 1611 KJV)
"O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep *all* my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deut. 5:29, today's KJV)
Will it be well with Israel if they keep just some of God's commandments, or must they keep all of them?
"And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks *at* the time of harvest,)" (Josh. 3:15, 1611 KJV)
"And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks *all* the time of harvest,) (Josh. 3:15, today's KJV)
Does the water of the Jordan overflow at some point during harvest season, or does it overflow throughout the entire harvest season?
"Sing, O *heaven*; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for *God* hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted." (Isa. 49:13, 1611 KJV)
"Sing, O *heavens*; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for *the LORD* hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted." (Isa. 49:13, today's KJV)
Is it "heaven" or "heavens?" And is the Divine Name used here or not?
"Concerning the Ammonites, thus saith the LORD; Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth their king inherit *God*, and his people dwell in his cities?" (Jer. 49:1, 1611 KJV)
"Concerning the Ammonites, thus saith the LORD; Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth their king inherit *Gad,* and his people dwell in his cities?" (Jer. 49:1, today's KJV)
Have the Ammonites inherited both God and God's cities? Or merely the territory and cities of Gad?
"And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto *thy people*, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." (Ezek. 3:11, 1611 KJV)
"And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto *the children of thy people*, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." (Ezek. 3:11, 1611 KJV)
To whom is Ezekiel to go -- to his people, or to their children?
"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art *Christ*, the Son of the living God." (Mt. 16:16, 1611 KJV)
"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art *the Christ*, the Son of the living God." (Mt. 16:16, today's KJV)
Just Christ? Or THE Christ?
"But when he saw Jesus afar off, he *came* and worshipped him" (Mk. 5:6, 1611 KJV)
"But when he saw Jesus afar off, he *ran* and worshipped him" (Mk. 5:6, today's KJV)
Did the man simply come to Jesus, perhaps walking? Or did he run to Jesus?
"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of *things* from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" (Lk. 1:3, 1611 KJV)
"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of *all things* from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" (Lk. 1:3, today's KJV)
Did Luke have perfect understanding of only a few things, or of all things?
"Therefore his *sister* sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." (Jn. 11:3, 1611 KJV)
"Therefore his *sisters* sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." (Jn. 11:3, today's KJV)
Did only one of the two sisters send word to Jesus about Lazarus, or did they both send word?
"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, *helps in governments*, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor. 12:28, 1611 KJV)
"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, *helps, governments*, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor. 12:28, today's KJV)
Is Paul speaking of one administrative gift known as "helps in governments," or is he speaking of two different gifts, a gift of "helps" and a gift of "governments?"
"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than *edifying* which is in faith: so do." (1 Tim. 1:4, 1611 KJV)
"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than *godly edifying* which is in faith: so do." (1 Tim. 1:4, today's KJV)
So is it merely edifying, or is it a particluar kind of edifying, namely, godly edifying?
"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual *sacrifice*, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5, 1611 KJV)
"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual *sacrifices*, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5, today's KJV)
Is Peter telling us to offer one single spiritual sacrifice, or many different spiritual sacrifices?
"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not *the Son* hath not life." (1 Jn. 5:12, 1611 KJV)
"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not *the Son of God* hath not life." (1 Jn. 5:12, today's KJV)
So is it "the Son" or "the Son of God?"
These are but a few of the numerous examples of differences in wording *and meaning* between the 1611 KJV and today's KJV. The differences raise some serious questions. Which version in each of these cases is correct? And since the "original" translators' copy no longer exists, how do you *know* which version is correct? Which version has God's "pure, preserved words?" How can you *know* this for certain?
Archangel7
New Member
Would it be any less confusing than having the congregation read from a 17th C. English translation it couldn't understand because of its archaic language?
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Thou beeth on to something!