Do we have any KJV Only here?

[Jordan Kurecki]

'It'? Which one? Which exact KJ version is the 'it'? There are several versions, which one exactly?

WHICH NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV or Nestle-Aland critical Greek text is the true words of God? All of these have undergone several "revisions" over the years and yet you still call them "the" NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV and "the" Greek.

the American Bible Society, no friend to the King James Bible, had this to say about the "revisions" of the King James Bible. The American Bible Society wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).

The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts that make up the King James Bible have never changed. Not a single word. And now we have better and improved means to print our Bibles and so hardly any of these printing errors are going to slip through.

This is in sharp contrast to the DELIBERATE and conscious TEXTUAL changes that are made in the ever changing ESVs, NIVs, NASBs and NKJVs which have to copyright their works every time they make these changes.

There is only one copyright date on the King James Bible and that is 1611. The reason you will not see different copyright dates is because it has never been “revised”. All they have done is to correct some minor printing typos that have occurred at various times through innumerable printings of the King James Bible.

“Samuel Ward was involved in the ongoing proofing of the KJV text after its publication in 1611. The only changes of the KJV since 1611 were of three types:

1. 1612: Typography (from Gothic to Roman Type).

2. 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors

3. 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling...

If you want to get a copy of God's complete, inspired and inerrant words, simply get a Cambridge printing of the King James Bible. You can also get one at either of these two publishing houses.

A great place to buy quality made King James Holy Bibles

Bearing Precious Seed

http://www.bpsmilford.org


And here is another one

http://www.localchurchbiblepublishers.com/"


Above quotes from:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/answerwhitewhichkjb.htm
http://brandplucked.webs.com/printingerrors.htm

 

[Rippon]

What an Strawman,

You mean a strawman.
all of us KJVO people are simply traditionalists who think everything new is evil and wicked
[/quote]
That's a core element of your sect.

Do you think Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are accurate manuscripts simply because they are older Rippon?

They are very valuable. What are you comparing them with?

you textual critics can't possibly ever believe that you're prized and ancient manuscripts are corrupt.

I am not a textual critic. You meant your instead of you're.

The real irony is with those of you holding the critical text position, straining at every gnat you perceive to be in the KJVO position while swallowing all sorts of camels doing it.

I see you have swallowed the whole of David Cloud's stuff. Tis a pity.

 

[tyndale1946]

You mean a strawman.
all of us KJVO people are simply traditionalists who think everything new is evil and wicked

That's a core element of your sect.

They are very valuable. What are you comparing them with?

I am not a textual critic. You meant your instead of you're.

I see you have swallowed the whole of David Cloud's stuff. Tis a pity.[/QUOTE]

Tis a pity that people want come on here and start a fire!... The KJVO battle seems to go on and on... Christian folk prefer what they read... Whatever translation they read from. I prefer and quote from the KJV... That is the one I read and that is the one I prefer and in my seventy years on this earth I have been trying to understand and follow what I prefer... I don't want to read any other translation I am happy with the KJV and I am sure what ever translations you read you are happy and satisfied with yours... The trouble I find is when someone tries to shove another translation down someone elses throat... Forced religion is not Christianity no matter what your intention!... Brother Glen

 

[TCassidy]

1. Why do KJV only people reject the apocrypha, the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?

The Apocrypha was removed from the Old Testament and placed between the Testaments and carries no more authority than any other extra-biblical writings such as concordances, lexicons, or lists of people. The AV of 1611 was the official bible of the Anglican Communion (Church of England) and their doctrinal statement makes it clear the Apocrypha is NOT scripture.

The 39 Articles, the official doctrinal statement of the Church of England says:

VI. Of the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Job
Psalm
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
New Testament

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and
instruction of manners; but yet doth not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are
these following:

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
Song of the Three Children
Story of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Section VI

2. How did people get saved before 1611?

The same way they got saved after 1611, and 1511, 1411, 1311, 1211, 1111, 1011, and so on.

3. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised ten times, the last being in 1850?

Uh, well, no. There were several editions between 1611 and 1760 that, although they corrected errors and made some changes did not rise to the level of a revision.

There have been three major revisions, the 1760/62 which was the culmination of twenty-years work by Francis Parris. The 1760 edition was reprinted without change in 1762.

Then the 1769 Oxford edition, largely the work of Benjamin Blayney.

Then the 1873 edition, the Cambridge Paragraph Bible with F. H. A. Scrivener as its primary editor.

Which one is inspired? All of them. Or none of them. Depending on whether or not you understand derivative inspiration.

All bible versions are vested with derivative inspiration due to their being derived from the inspired words found in the Hebrew and Greek textucopia.

However, none are inspired in the verbal and plenary way the autographs were inspired.

 

[Salty]

I would correct your statement by saying it is the preserved and most accurate word of God and without error, in the ENGLISH language.

Why is the KJV more accurate than the previous English translations?

 

[TCassidy]

Newer translations like the NIV and ESV use the best and most reliable manuscripts and do produce a more accurate translation.

Both "best" and "most reliable" are subjective opinions and therefore without merit in any discussion of New Testament textual criticism.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

I do not argue that the modern translations do not sometimes "contain" the word of God. But I believe them to be horribly corrupted.

Corrupted? What do you mean?

Contain? What do you mean?

Edit: and we have another kjvo throw down / dead horse beating.
I'm sure THIS time the issue will be settled.

Sent from my SM-T230 using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

There is only one copyright date on the King James Bible and that is 1611. The reason you will not see different copyright dates is because it has never been “revised”. All they have done is to correct some minor printing typos that have occurred at various times through innumerable printings of the King James Bible.

Uh, well, actually, no.

There are 421 significant changes from the 1611 to the 1769 and about 136 of those are changes of substance such that they change the meaning of the verse.

As to copyright. The KJV was copyrighted in 1611 and it is still under copyright in the United Kingdom. It carries a "Crown Patent in Perpetuity" which means it is the property of the British Crown and will continued to be copyrighted until 50 years after the demise of the British Crown.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

n accordance with this Forum's Rules, this thread is closed.

9. Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
For example:

• The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc.
• The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," "Pickled Preserved Version," etc.