Do you have a counterfeit KJV?

If you claim to have a "perfectly perfect" Bible you ultimately must pick one to compare all others too, IMHO.

Of course, it is man's opiniononly that leads to that choice.

 

You would think this guy would be a true AV1611 KJVO!

I guess the first KJV is counterfeit for many reasons.

 

That web site is absolutely full of blasphemy! The writer goes so far as to say the spelling of S-a-v-i-o-u-r is the one that talks about Christ. Spelling without the u is labeled as someone who is counterfeit, and who is bound for the Lake of Fire. Absolute blasphemy - the book is placed before Christ, and Christ is called counterfeit and is called hell-bound. This lying and blasphemous web site should be avoided at all costs. I wonder what the Lord is going to say about someone calling Christ a counterfeit on judgment day? I certainly wouldn't want to be in that person's shoes! Pleading the KJVO myth is certainly not going to help!

 

This would question me to ask if the web site owner is for real or not, or is it to prove a point that there is not one version that can claim to be the one and only over all others?

 

The web site itself is a pretty scary thing - it, like most believers in the KJVO myth, claims that there is no other TRUE Bible version. How sad that anyone can be so blinded by Satan's deceptions!

 

That's being plain-old nit-picky!!!!!

 

I agree.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

The gent who wrote article is way behind times. The Bible has been translated into over 2200 languages instead of his claimed 1200.

His "savior vs saviour" thingie musta been invented when he ran outta Ritalin. Looks like something William Branham mighta invented...or Ruckman, or Tim Leary.

He oughtta be glad it aint against the law to be a kook, or he'd be up for 99 years in the electric chair.

The Hebrew for saviour is yasha. The Greek is soter, which is five letters in the Greek alphabet also. Wonder how he gets around THAT little prob?

OH, YEAH..."ADVANCED REVELATION"!

 

I didn't see anyone picking nits!

Since when is pointing out blatant blasphemy being "nit-picky?'If some Buddhist whacko came to BaptistBoard and started spouting Buddhist lies, wouldn't it be our duty to stand against such blasphemy?

 

Kinda odd that no(I have not personally seen it here or anywhere else) KJVOist have condemned the serious errors put forth on that webpage. If this person was an MVOist and he said the same garbage, many of our friendly KJVO authors both home and abroad would have web pages, books, radio talk shows, etc… exposing and gnashing their teeth about these errors! Clearly there is a double standard.

It's our duty Keith to expose and call out those in error. The problem today is our right to call out those in error is hindered by liberals who do not want to hear good old fashioned preaching. For some odd reason we are viewed as attacking etc… if we call out those in error. I guess that Paul was wrong to correct Peter in public…sigh.

Sorry but in the south we still call a snake a snake and a dog a dog.

 

I didn't see anyone picking nits!

Since when is pointing out blatant blasphemy being "nit-picky?'If some Buddhist whacko came to BaptistBoard and started spouting Buddhist lies, wouldn't it be our duty to stand against such blasphemy? </font>[/QUOTE]Keith M, I think you misunderstood, I was referring to this stuff as "nit-picky".


quote from opening post
This web site claims that a Cambridge edition of the KJV is counterfeit. On the quick check list that is further down on the page, some of the examples that make a "counterfeit" include
the following:

"assuaged" instead of "asswaged"
"today" instead of "to day"
"tomorrow" instead of "to morrow"
"entreat" instead of "intreat"
"music" instead of "musick"
"public" instead of "publick"
"jubilee" instead of "jubile"
"two-edged" instead of "twoedged"
"chestnut" instead of "chesnut"

 

I am TR-KJV preferred, and I'll say this guy is an idolator (putting the Bible before God). The assumption of your post is a little off though, because a KJVo (advanced revelationist/inspiration of the kjv1611 document and translators) agrees with this drivel to some lesser or (I cannot imagine) more degree so they by principle would not disagree with this guy on much.

Chad