Faith that God did preserve his word for us today. I believe this is in one book, you however believe this is in many books. I believe that your few is confusing. Why do I have to have all those books to have God's word? How do you chose which one is correct? And don't say the original source text, because we don't have the ORIGINALS. Does all the versions agree with each other? No they don't. So why would this one have God's word and the other not? Because if this one says this and the other says that, they are not the same, so how do you pick?
Proof? You can not prove this statement. So are you saying that the Geneva Bible is wrong also? Can I pick up a Geneva bible and it be the pure Word of the Most High?
Earth to Homebound....the Wycliff, Vulgate, Bishops, Geneva, AV1611,1873KJV, KJ21, NKJV, TMB do not agree with the 1769 KJV.
Your basis for thinking that the 1769KJV is perfect lines right up there with the modern speaking in tongues movement! It's all based on emotional reasoning and taking scripture(in your case you have yet to provide this info) out of context. The tongue speaker will always take us to the book of Acts to justify the unscriptual babel while the KJVOist(for the most part) will run to Psalm 12:6-7. Do you see the problem with your statement? I see that you give me the same spin as every Mormon that I have talked to. Not to be hateful, but you are running neck to neck with those in gross error my friend.
And this is were we differ. If I believed that the translators were the only ones behind the King James Bible, I would be more inclined to believe the modern version. I however believe that the translators were inspired by God, even though they did not know this. Just as John did not know that he was Elijah in the bible. I believe that inspiration stop after the King James Bible though. Why? Because God saw fit to put his word in the language of the day. That language is still here today except for some different word spellings and some words that may not be used by everyone.
This idea is nothing but Roman Catholism at its best. That statement is nothing but KJVOism version of Ex Cathedra in the purest form of the word. This is the most unfounded statement that you have made so far. You can not even tell us why the AV1611 even existed if what you say is true about the 1769(or whatever revision you apply this to). Why did the AV1611 exist if it was not perfect? If the AV1611 translators were inspired by God then God made a mistake OR the KJVO Camp is in gross error because they use a perverted and/or corrected KJV! Statements like you made only hurt your KJVO agenda. So did God make a mistake in 1611 or is the KJVO Camp in error?
You can believe that lie if you like but I will stand by what those "inspired" AV1611 translators when they wrote the following:
“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.”
and
“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.”
The above was wrote long before the modernism of KJVOism can into being by the hands of the SDA BW and D. Fuller.
I don't have anymore time to waste on you since you have proven that you are not interested in the facts. I will pray that God leads you into all truths and that you will see as I did that KJVOism is nothing but a man made doctrine that has hurt the cause of Christ.
Sorry to sound hateful but there comes a time when we must kick the dirt off our feet and move on.
