Featured Baptist churches that claim to use the "King James Bible AV 1611"

The 1560 Geneva was the first complete (old and new testament) English Bible with chapter and verse numbers.

 

Yes, I appreciate your apology. I knew you had renounced the act before I posted, but I wanted to show a specific example of an error 'placed into the record.'

Indeed, Logos. Additionally, the KJV itself renders the same Greek word as "Sir/sir" rather than "Lord" in other parables where the analogy could be understood to be Christ --

So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? (Matthew 13:27, KJV)

And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I [go], sir: and went not. (Matthew 20:30, KJV) ​

And also when Jesus (although unrecognized) is clearly being referred to --

The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. (John 5:7, KJV)

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. (John 20:15)
​

 

Actually...Bro.Roby..We're EVEN

Bro.Roby.... I'm not gonna argue the point with you for several reasons....

#1...about half way through the above quoted comments you actually either directly or indirectly called me (or implied that I was...) IGNORANT and implied that it was willful ignorance (or at least that is how it sounded to me). THAT pretty much ends my conversation with you about (at least) this subject lest things get out of control. I have found in life that the most "graceful" and Christian thing I can do sometimes is AVOID certain people and circumstances and turn and walk the other way.

#2...It is VERY apparent to me that you are as close-minded about your position as I am about mine so there really isn't any point in arguing either way. I believe the mss evidence I have read and been exposed to is the truth....and you obviously believe the same about yours. We can NEVER come to any compromise or "accord" about this issue. We will just have to wait and see what the "fruit" of either position is when we get to heaven. I would suggest that the main measure of the "fruit" (or lack thereof) of this and other highly debated topics in the New Testament church of the last days will be the multitude of souls either won or lost before the Lord comes. The ecumenicism of our time is causing much compromise in our day and thus we have a lukewarm church that isn't getting the job done. I believe this and other issues are drawing us all away from the true needs of the hour in history we find ourselves in.

#3... The truth is....you accuse me of not having any scripture to "back up" my KJVO position. I will admit that I have no particular verse of scripture that (specifically) says "the King James Bible is the only valid english translation". I hope that makes you feel better (that I actually admit that).....BUT....it doesn't change my mind at all. The TRUTH is....YOU don't have any (specific) verse of scripture that backs up your position EITHER. You have NO VERSE OF SCRIPTURE that says.."the-(fill in the name of the MV's (and the KJV:smilewinkgrinyou are using)-are all valid and accurate translations of the Original Manuscripts".WE are both dependant on the version of the evidence we believe. As I see it we are both left in a state of dependency upon God and His Holy Spirit but we can't BOTH be right in our disagreement. Things that are different ARE NOT equal. Which leads me to the following....

I hope...as honest adherents of our respective positions....that we will both humbly and sincerely surrender and submit ourselves to God. I pray that we'll seek to get closer to Him as much as possible through His Word and faithful service to Him. I believe the reason He left us here after He saved us is basically three-fold (God likes Trinitys:thumbs...#1 To bring glory to Him..#2 To live holy lives that honor him...and #3 To be witnesses for Him (that others may know Him). That is our mission. Personally...I have a long way to go to be as true as I should be to that purpose. This flesh of mine keeps getting in the way. I'll pray for you...you pray for me.raying:

Bro.Greg

 

I said I can kind of see their point, as in I can see where they are coming from, I didn't say I necessarily agree. I probably should have been more clear

 

Doesn't the KJV at times translate the holy Spirit as being an 'it?"

 

Please remember the ONLY 100 % accurate word of God were the original manuscripts, both OT/NT canon books...

BOTH TR/CT can be seenas so close to them, are seen as being the word of God, thus ANY english version rendered off EITHER of them , as long as translated accurately, would be seen as being the word of god!

carry on!

 

So Let Me Get You Rightly.....

So what I get from what you are saying is this......The only 100% accurate "Word of God" was the Original Autographs...RIGHT?(remembering also that God used imperfect sinful men as the "penman" to put His PERFECT Word on whatever they wrote on in those days....papyrus,stone,etc.)

And....if that is true the Originals were (and I do acknowledge that they were 100% accurate and perfect in their entirety) Inspired,God-Breathed. (on these things I think we can agree)

Do you believe that God then withdrew Himself from the process of the transmission of the text of His Word down through the ages until the present day and left it to the hands of men to do? Don't you believe that God could and would Protect and Preserve His Word so that we can have it in perfect form (just like the Originals) in our day?...Or are we to have to depend on imperfect and tainted versions and man-produced translations that are full of mistakes and copyist errors?

FOR THE RECORD...I believe that the Inspiration of Scripture and the Preservation of Scripture are equally miraculous works of God to the end that we have the perfect Word of God in our day,in our language, just like they did in the day when it was Originally penned. I have absolute confidence in it. His words are the words of life and I am eternally thankful that He chose to open my heart to allow me to receive them. I just wish I was more faithful to them.

You carry on too!:type:

Bro.Greg

 

yes, God indeed DID get int he pservation of His word, and we have that result in the greek/hebrew texts that we use to translate off from English versions!

NO tranlsation was preserved as word of God, but the texys behind them, what they are based on, were!

 

Gregory Perry Sr:

I must apologize for the use of the word "ignorant" as it implies "stupidity" to many, even though I stated that was not the case here. I am "ignorant" of French cuisine because I've never studied anything about it, nor been exposed to it, not because I'm stupid. That's what I meant by the "safety" of your position. I don't know how many Bible versions you've read, but each was made by a different translator, or team of translators, and therefore each will be different from any others. Seems you are relying on the AV men being 100% right when they were men same as us and therefore subject to human error, and each having his own opinion of the "best" rendering of what they were translating.

Well, it SHOULD, seeing that His word is the ONLY source of info we have of God, and that NO doctrine of worship derived from any other source other than His word can be true.

The truth is...I don't need any Scripture to deny the truth of your position. YOU need Scripture to VERIFY it. YOU have the burden of proof, not I. And a lack of Scriptural support for any doctrine of worship consigns that doctrine to the scrap heap.

I don't expect the KJV to be specifically named in any Scripture, but GOD is easily capable of presenting any message He chooses, and there's simply NOTHING from Him supporting KJVO, not by the slightest quark of the least implication.

YOU are dependent upon ethereal "evidence" not supported by Scripture, while I am dependent upon empirical evidence that anyone can see, such as the MAN-MADE origin of KJVO.

I have a fast red car.
I have a red fast car.
Different. Not the same.
Equal or not? Is either of them wrong?

I THINK U meant "Things that are different are not the same." If U are referring to Bible versions, or ancient mss, made by different people, OF COURSE they're not the same. But WRONG? If so, how do you decide?

You may choose to not discuss the KJVO myth with me, but please know that, long as you publicly advocate KJVO, you will be opposed by I, or other Freedom Readers who KNOW (not GUESS) that KJVO is wrong.

 

Can't help but wonder what the readers of the geneva/Bishop/Vulgate thought when ole KJV came out!

Did they have same kind of discussions?

geneva only/bishop only?

 

Slightly off topic. In other threads we have spoke about Bible publishers and quality vs. price. I purchased a KJV BIble from local church publishers to see what everyone is talking about and all I can say is wow! Low price, exceptional value by any measure.

But there are other Bible values out there and personally I see nothing wrong with profit. I'm always giving away good leather modern version Bibles to those whom I come accross that I think would appreciate having one. I don't think I'm the only person in the country doing this either.

 

Prolly face-to-face, as they didn't have twitter, etc. or sites like this. Just the names of the versions were changed; same ole horse feathers otherwise.

 

I am still debating when to order on of their "Scofields" in Calkskin !

 

Something like "For sooth, thou hast forsaken thine word of God for erronous and false renderings?"

 

Funny U should say that. The KJV replaced the everyday commonly-used "forsooth" with the then-ultra-modern "verily". Sooth, forsooth continued to be commonly-used until the mid-1600s. (Just about their only use now is "soothe, soothsayer".)

 

Behold....The proverbial impasse...!

 

By the way Roby...sorry about the way I had to do the quotes in the response above...it sure was difficult. I never have known how to break up a post and respond to different portions of it like I have seen you and others on here do. If you'd care to instruct me on how that is done I'd love to know. I'm not exactly a computer geek here but I'm trying! Thanks.

Bro.Greg

 

Bro Greg - I have to do this in reverse for a reason, I am going to show you an "end quote" and a "start quote"

End quote ----> [/quote] Place this at the end of any statement you wish to quote

Start quote ---->

 

Thanks...

Winman....I think I got that. I cut and pasted your instructions into an email and sent it to myself for future reference. I'll give it a try next time the need arises. Thanks for your help Brother. It sure is fun in here isn't it?:laugh::smilewinkgrin:

Bro.Greg

 

It's easy, once you do it a few times you'll get it.

You can even quote quotes within quotes. :tongue3:

If you click on the Quote button for this post, you will see how I quoted within quotes.