AV 1611 KJV Holy Bible

[jbh28]

I think this is "The Fake KJVO"! It's so over the top, he's a brand new BB member, boasting of credentials... He is characaturing the real kjvo-double inspiration-Advanced Inspiration fanboy... Then again he could be a Ruckmanite...


Just in case, here's a link to the background of the kjvo movement.
http://www.kjv-only.com/doug/kjvoroots.html

Sometimes purposeful ignorance and accidental ignorance are hard to tell apart.

Actually, it sounds much like an atheist argument for not really knowing what the Scripture says.

 

[thomas15]

From the introduction to 2 Thessalonians in the 1917 Scofield Reference Bible:

Theme. The theme of Second Thessalonians is, unfortunately, obscured by a mistranslation in the A.V. of 2.2 where "day of Christ is at hand" (1 Cor. 1.a, note) should be, "day of the Lord is now present" (Isa. 2.12 refs.).

case closed Mr. PhD.

 

[jbh28]

At least the KJV has never been discredited. Like the greek text the NA 27 was taken from. My proof is in the introduction of the NA/27 and the explanation of the appratus they used in translating it.
MB

1. What do you mean by "discredited."
2. The NA 27 was taken from around 5600 manuscript, not one.

 

[gb93433]

The Record Theory suggests that the Holy Bibles in heaven are identical to the AV 1611 KJV Holy Bibles on earth.

Does that include the apocrypha in the KJV 1611? Does it include "The Translators To The Readers" section also. Imagine a perfect translation into English from three languages! I am waiting to see the KJV Old Testament translated without any present tense.

 

[gb93433]

I'm 17 yrs postdoctoral Ed.D. in higher education

If you had gotten a Ph.D. instead of an Ed.D. and studied a foreign language you would easily know that what you write is baloney. So learn a foreign language and then come back and write what you do.

 

[MB]

What is the "NA 27"?

Listen, I wouldn't want anyone to put down the KJV, it's my all-time fav that I use a majority of the time. It's been around for 401 yrs now, and that's a wonderful testimony in itself. But to state one translation is better than another is subjective at best. We all have our preferences, and I prefer the KJV. But I also have an NIV, ESV, and the Hebrew/Greek interlinears by Jay Green. All of these are good, too. I just prefer the KJV, and would never state it's the only one.

Well you can bet they do it all the time in this forum.
The NA/27 is where the newer version like the NASB the NIV the ESV and the NWT the Jehovah's witness bible text already know to be corrupt as well several others come from. It's a text writen in Greek and is a translation The NA/27 is where they go when they want to make a translation of the Alexandrian text. It is the Alexandrian text and the translation of it by Westscott and Hort. The versions I mentioned above are translated by the translator reading a passage and then the translator translates what he thinks it is saying. You know as well as I do what two different people read, does not always come out the same way. If it did we would all belong to the same church. Both have there own separate opinions. They call these a dynamic translations. The KJV was not translated this way at all. It is a formal translation. Meaning that it is more word for word than anything else and taken from a majority of text at the time.
I use other versions as well even though I'm aware of this. Although the KJV for me has the final authority.

The newer versions people have argued this to death making claims the Alexandrian is more accurate although this is just a claim to sell more bibles.
MB

 

[preacher4truth]

Well you can bet they do it all the time in this forum.
The NA/27 is where the newer version like the NASB the NIV the ESV and the NWT the Jehovah's witness bible text already know to be corrupt as well several others come from. It's a text writen in Greek and is a translation The NA/27 is where they go when they want to make a translation of the Alexandrian text. It is the Alexandrian text and the translation of it by Westscott and Hort. The versions I mentioned above are translated by the translator reading a passage and then the translator translates what he thinks it is saying. You know as well as I do what two different people read, does not always come out the same way. If it did we would all belong to the same church. Both have there own separate opinions. They call these a dynamic translations. The KJV was not translated this way at all. It is a formal translation. Meaning that it is more word for word than anything else and taken from a majority of text at the time.
I use other versions as well even though I'm aware of this. Although the KJV for me has the final authority.

The newer versions people have argued this to death making claims the Alexandrian is more accurate although this is just a claim to sell more bibles.
MB

Total unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

[Greektim]

Does that include the apocrypha in the KJV 1611? Does it include "The Translators To The Readers" section also. Imagine a perfect translation into English from three languages! I am waiting to see the KJV Old Testament translated without any present tense.

Bwahahaha (Hebrew present tense)... love it!

 

[gb93433]

At least the KJV has never been discredited.

Could you explain where the English word "baptism" came from? The same Greek word that is used in the NT is also used in the LXX.

 

[jbh28]

Well you can bet they do it all the time in this forum.

I don't know of anyone that puts down the KJV on this board. I believe the KJV is an excellent translation.

The NA/27 is where the newer version like the NASB the NIV the ESV and the NWT the Jehovah's witness bible text already know to be corrupt as well several others come from.

Well, the NASB came from the NA/25 if you want to be technical. However, the NWT shouldn't even be in the consideration. First, it comes from the Westcott and Hort text of 1881 and only used the NA 18 as a reference and not as a main source. The main problem with the NWT is not the textual source but the purposfully attempt to remove doctrines from the Bible. To compare the NWT with the ESV/NASB/NIV is disingenuous at best.

It's a text writen in Greek and is a translation

It's not a translation. The NA 27 is Greek and it's sources are greek.

The NA/27 is where they go when they want to make a translation of the Alexandrian text.

It uses more sources that those that are just Alexandrian. It's not a translation. It's the same language.

It is the Alexandrian text and the translation of it by Westscott and Hort.

There are many differences between the Westcott and Hort text of 1881 and the NA text. Neither are translations.

The versions I mentioned above are translated by the translator reading a passage and then the translator translates what he thinks it is saying.

Not at all. The NASB is very literal and more so that the KJV. The ESV and the KJV are very close. The NIV is less so, but not a paraphrase.

You know as well as I do what two different people read, does not always come out the same way.

and????

If it did we would all belong to the same church. Both have there own separate opinions. They call these a dynamic translations.

The NASB is not even close to a "dynamic" translation

The KJV was not translated this way at all. It is a formal translation.

As was the NASB and the ESV

Meaning that it is more word for word than anything else and taken from a majority of text at the time.

NASB is definatly more word for word. the KJV doesn't come from the Majority Text. The Majority Text and the TR disagree many times. (Either around 1200 or 1700. can't remember which)

I use other versions as well even though I'm aware of this. Although the KJV for me has the final authority.

Ok

The newer versions people have argued this to death making claims the Alexandrian is more accurate although this is just a claim to sell more bibles.
MB

while I don't disagree that money may have to do with having so many translation, that can't be said to be the case every time. You need to get your fact strait. You can believe what you want, but you can't change facts.

 

[thomas15]

.... Although the KJV for me has the final authority.

I would like to know how this works in a practical sense. Do you read a passage in the NASB, get spiritual insights there, then go to the final authority KJV and here your insights make a 180 degree shift because there is something wrong with the NASB which sends you in the wrong spiritual direction? What doctrine is changed from incorrect (NASB) to correct (KJV)?

 

[humblethinker]

I would like to know how this works in a practical sense. Do you read a passage in the NASB, get spiritual insights there, then go to the final authority KJV and here your insights make a 180 degree shift because there is something wrong with the NASB which sends you in the wrong spiritual direction? What doctrine is changed from incorrect (NASB) to correct (KJV)?

Good question:thumbs::thumbs:
I've asked a kjvo who should be 'in the know' if they can tell me a single church that has erred specifically due to using a different Bible than KJV and he told me he couldn't. This person in their 50's was a missionary and was the son of a missionary (IndiBap all of their lives).

 

[humblethinker]

I don't know of anyone that puts down the KJV on this board. I believe the KJV is an excellent translation.

Well, the NASB came from the NA/25 if you want to be technical. However, the NWT shouldn't even be in the consideration. First, it comes from the Westcott and Hort text of 1881 and only used the NA 18 as a reference and not as a main source. The main problem with the NWT is not the textual source but the purposfully attempt to remove doctrines from the Bible. To compare the NWT with the ESV/NASB/NIV is disingenuous at best.

It's not a translation. The NA 27 is Greek and it's sources are greek. It uses more sources that those that are just Alexandrian. It's not a translation. It's the same language. There are many differences between the Westcott and Hort text of 1881 and the NA text. Neither are translations. Not at all. The NASB is very literal and more so that the KJV. The ESV and the KJV are very close. The NIV is less so, but not a paraphrase. and???? The NASB is not even close to a "dynamic" translation As was the NASB and the ESV NASB is definatly more word for word. the KJV doesn't come from the Majority Text. The Majority Text and the TR disagree many times. (Either around 1200 or 1700. can't remember which)
Ok
while I don't disagree that money may have to do with having so many translation, that can't be said to be the case every time. You need to get your fact strait. You can believe what you want, but you can't change facts.

Very good reply jbh28!:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[gb93433]

The main problem with the NWT is not the textual source but the purposfully attempt to remove doctrines from the Bible.

Also a deliberate attempt at using incorrect grammar rules. They also quote A. T. Robertson completely out of context in some of their attempts to support their pet doctrines.

 

[thomas15]

Also a deliberate attempt at using incorrect grammar rules. They also quote A. T. Robertson completely out of context in some of their attempts to support their pet doctrines.

The JWs had their cult beliefs way before the NWT came into being. The NWT is actually their attempt to make their unbiblical dogma "biblical".

With their one single "translation" of the bible, the watchtower does what the KJVO accuse everyone else of and that is publishing material strictly for profit. The watchtower is the worlds largest private publishing/printing house and uses free and/or low cost labor to get their goods to market. Amazing how they use a capatolistic society to make a ton of money while being critical of free market systems.

 

[gb93433]

I own a photo AV 1611 KJV N.T. first edition book form

Did you get it at http://contendforthefaith.ca/2011/04/28/1611-kjv-digital-facsimile-2/

 

[franklinmonroe]

what I post I wrote ...

makahiya has been posting exactly (word-for-word) the same assertions across many websites in the past few months. The sincerity of his presence here should be closely scrutinized.