Do we have any KJV Only here?

[evangelist6589]

I bet we have KJV preferred folk but I imagine KJV Only are rare on this board. If there are any KJV Only here I have three questions for you.

1. Why do KJV only people reject the apocrypha, the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
2. How did people get saved before 1611?
3. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised ten times, the last being in 1850?

Source-http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/king_james_onlyism.htm

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I bet we have KJV preferred folk but I imagine KJV Only are rare on this board. If there are any KJV Only here I have three questions for you.

1. Why do KJV only people reject the apocrypha, the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
2. How did people get saved before 1611?
3. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised ten times, the last being in 1850?

Source-http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Apologetics/king_james_onlyism.htm

1. Because it was inserted between the testaments with the title "Apocrypha" which means Spurious.
2. People get saved through hearing the Gospel, the Gospel is found in other translations, although other doctrines are watered down and diluated in them.
3. as to which one is inspired, I do not know. I do know that there is a difference between an edition and a revision. and that the changes and edits in the different editions and "revisions" are a whole lot different than the differences in the new translations.

No offense Evan, but I doubt you and many others on this board really understand the true arguments on the King James Bible. There is so much misinformation that comes from those supporting new versions that it makes me sick, while I do admit that this is also done on the KJVO side as well.

With that being said, do you have any idea what the beliefs about inspiration are of those editors and scholars that support and put together the critical texts behind your modern translations are? Many of them are apostate and rationalistic, For example Nestle Eberhard and Barbara Aland, were both rationalistic in their view of the scriptures. Do you even know who they are?

Modern translations flow from a stream of apostacy and theological liberalism.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Evan I also would like to ask you some questions.

1. Do you believe God has promised to preserve his words for us?
2.. Do you believe the Bible is inspired and without error?
3. If so, Where can someone get a copy of this bible that is inspired and without error? Does it exist anywhere today for us to view?

 

[evangelist6589]

1. Because it was inserted between the testaments with the title "Apocrypha" which means Spurious.
2. People get saved through hearing the Gospel, the Gospel is found in other translations, although other doctrines are watered down and diluated in them.
3. as to which one is inspired, I do not know. I do know that there is a difference between an edition and a revision. and that the changes and edits in the different editions and "revisions" are a whole lot different than the differences in the new translations.

No offense Evan, but I doubt you and many others on this board really understand the true arguments on the King James Bible. There is so much misinformation that comes from those supporting new versions that it makes me sick, while I do admit that this is also done on the KJVO side as well.

With that being said, do you have any idea what the beliefs about inspiration are of those editors and scholars that support and put together the critical texts behind your modern translations are? Many of them are apostate and rationalistic, For example Nestle Eberhard and Barbara Aland, were both rationalistic in their view of the scriptures. Do you even know who they are?

Modern translations flow from a stream of apostacy and theological liberalism.

But why do KJVO mock the art and science of textual criticism? Why do they ignore more recent and better manuscripts that have been discovered that do nothing but improve on the KJV? In my article I contain the preface of the 1611 KJV in which the translators themselves encouraged the revision and updating of the translation?

I doubt you have a 1611 KJV Jordan but are using a KJV from the 1800's.

 

[evangelist6589]

Evan I also would like to ask you some questions.

1. Do you believe God has promised to preserve his words for us?
2.. Do you believe the Bible is inspired and without error?
3. If so, Where can someone get a copy of this bible that is inspired and without error? Does it exist anywhere today for us to view?

1. yes- and this has been done in the various versions he has given us.
2. not in areas of theology and doctrine only in areas of spelling and grammar.
3. The originals were destroyed but we have copies that are pretty clear and accurate. Newer translations like the NIV and ESV use the best and most reliable manuscripts and do produce a more accurate translation.

A good book for you to read Jordan that goes into far more detail is called How to choose a translation for all its worth.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

But why do KJVO mock the art and science of textual criticism? Why do they ignore more recent and better manuscripts that have been discovered that do nothing but improve on the KJV? In my article I contain the preface of the 1611 KJV in which the translators themselves encouraged the revision and updating of the translation?

I doubt you have a 1611 KJV Jordan but are using a KJV from the 1800's.

1. Because the "Art and science" of textual criticism has been developed by APOSTATES and THEOLOGICAL LIBERALS. And it's not "science" it's a philosophy that has it's foundation in rationalism.

2. What better manuscripts are you talking about?

Do you still believe the mantra that "older" is the same as "more accurate"?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

1. yes- and this has been done in the various versions he has given us.
2. not in areas of theology and doctrine only in areas of spelling and grammar.
3. The originals were destroyed but we have copies that are pretty clear and accurate. Newer translations like the NIV and ESV use the best and most reliable manuscripts and do produce a more accurate translation.

A good book for you to read Jordan that goes into far more detail is called How to choose a translation for all its worth.

Do you believe that the 1950 New World Translation of the New Testament is more accurate and faithful to the originals than the most current edition of whatever particular translation you use?

Why or why not?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

The translators of the KJV also rejected the Apocrypha as being the word of God. They all followed the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England.

Article VI. 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.
[The Books of the Old Testament follow]
And the books (as Hierome [Jerome] saith) the Church doth read for example of life and manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
[The books of the Apocrypha follow]
All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and count them Canonical.

But why do you want to bring this up, Evangelist? It will only end in tears and unpleasantness.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I have God's word preserved in my NASB, KJV, NKJV, YLT, ESV among other translations.

I know, I know, some will say 'They are different, the wording is different, they changed words, left out words, have different words'!!!! The same can be said of the differing KJ versions as well, and it is true because there are differences. Which KJ version is the one and only true word of God, there are several?

 

[Rippon]

the "Art and science" of textual criticism has been developed by APOSTATES and THEOLOGICAL LIBERALS.

You said the same thing in post #2. That sentiment of yours is not allowed on the BB.

 

[Rippon]

Why do they ignore more recent and better manuscripts that have been discovered that do nothing but improve on the KJV?

Not more recent manuscripts. You mean more recent discoveries of older manuscripts. The KJV, in its various incarnations, is based on manuscripts of more recent vintage. It's ironic that KJVOs in this case believe that newer is better than older.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

The kjv translators even said that the meanest of translations contained God's word.

I'm not kjvo....I'm kjvp and I read nasb, net, esv, nkjv, web as well.

Sent from my SM-T230 using Tapatalk

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I have God's word preserved in my NASB, KJV, NKJV, YLT, ESV among other translations.

I know, I know, some will say 'They are different, the wording is different, they changed words, left out words, have different words'!!!! The same can be said of the differing KJ versions as well, and it is true because there are differences. Which KJ version is the one and only true word of God, there are several?

https://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_05.asp

The changes between the different "versions" of the KJV are absolutely not comparably to the butchery of the Modern Translations.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The kjv translators even said that the meanest of translations contained God's word.

I'm not kjvo....I'm kjvp and I read nasb, net, esv, nkjv, web as well.

Sent from my SM-T230 using Tapatalk

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

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Not more recent manuscripts. You mean more recent discoveries of older manuscripts. The KJV, in its various incarnations, is based on manuscripts of more recent vintage. It's ironic that KJVOs in this case believe that newer is better than older.

What an Strawman, as if we simply refuse the new translations because they are new. Because all of us KJVO people are simply traditionalists who think everything new is evil and wicked... yeah right. We recognize that what you textual critics call "oldest and best" manuscripts are really corrupt and contradictory even among themselves.

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

Why not then do you use the 1950 NWT NT over your Newer translations?
Must be because you realize the NWT is a corrupt translation produced by Heretics. But you textual critics can't possibly ever believe that you're prized and ancient manuscripts are corrupt.

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.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I have God's word preserved in my NASB, KJV, NKJV, YLT, ESV among other translations.

I know, I know, some will say 'They are different, the wording is different, they changed words, left out words, have different words'!!!! The same can be said of the differing KJ versions as well, and it is true because there are differences. Which KJ version is the one and only true word of God, there are several?

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

 

[Internet Theologian]

https://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_05.asp

The changes between the different "versions" of the KJV are absolutely not comparably to the butchery of the Modern Translations.

As is typical of those compelled by man to fly the KJVO flag you've avoided actually looking at and addressing what was said and offer only a diversion. You need to forego a spiritual maturation process outside of sect praise. My prayers for you are to such an end Jordan.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Once again brother Jordan, I ask you to answer this question:

I have God's word preserved in my NASB, KJV, NKJV, YLT, ESV among other translations.

I know, I know, some will say 'They are different, the wording is different, they changed words, left out words, have different words'!!!! The same can be said of the differing KJ versions as well, and it is true because there are differences. Which KJ version is the one and only true word of God, there are several?

 

[Internet Theologian]

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

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

 

[evangelist6589]

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

Exactly. I have 3 KJV bibles and some contain words not in the other.