-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do you use the 1611 KJV?
- Thread starter Dale-c
- Start date
- Status
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Cailiosa: //The other versions unfortunatly I have not been able to look up, as I don't have one but I fully intend to.//
The path to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Scholarship undone is no scholarship at all.
Cailiosa: //BTW what is a Beroeans?//
A citizen of the city of Berea:
Act 17:10-11 ;(KJV1611 Edition):
And the brethren immediatly sent away Paul and Silas
by night vnto Berea: who comming thither,
went into the Synagogue of the Iewes.
11 These were more noble then those in Thessalonica,
in that they receiued the word with all readinesse of minde,
and searched the Scriptures dayly, whether those things were so.
Cailiosa: //The manuscripts that were used for the NIV and I'm not sure the others were the Alexandrian. Which the Alexandrians were Christians who tried to mix together christianity and their pagan beliefs. I know other versions used this also but I cannot tell you which ones for sure.//
This is classic misinformation. In fact, there were 100s of additional
manuscripts available in 1880+ that were NOT available to the
translators of the KJVs. The Christians in Alexandria were no better nor
no worse than the Christians in some other City of the Roman
Empire.
For additional misinformation, especially about the Apocrypha,
try this comic book source of Theology:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp
The path to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Scholarship undone is no scholarship at all.
Cailiosa: //BTW what is a Beroeans?//
A citizen of the city of Berea:
Act 17:10-11 ;(KJV1611 Edition):
And the brethren immediatly sent away Paul and Silas
by night vnto Berea: who comming thither,
went into the Synagogue of the Iewes.
11 These were more noble then those in Thessalonica,
in that they receiued the word with all readinesse of minde,
and searched the Scriptures dayly, whether those things were so.
Cailiosa: //The manuscripts that were used for the NIV and I'm not sure the others were the Alexandrian. Which the Alexandrians were Christians who tried to mix together christianity and their pagan beliefs. I know other versions used this also but I cannot tell you which ones for sure.//
This is classic misinformation. In fact, there were 100s of additional
manuscripts available in 1880+ that were NOT available to the
translators of the KJVs. The Christians in Alexandria were no better nor
no worse than the Christians in some other City of the Roman
Empire.
For additional misinformation, especially about the Apocrypha,
try this comic book source of Theology:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp
Ed Edwards said:
Thank you for showing that link, I guess I wasn't very understandable with what I was trying to say about the Alexandrian script, perhaps it was another one I was confused with (I know there is one that was rewritten by halfpagan/ "half christian" so called believers)
What the Tract says I agree with. Sorry if I was confusing, I'm not very good with my words! :laugh:
william s. correa
New Member
I am not KJVO
There is a myth but it aint and wasn't in 1611!It was a devine intervention! The myth started in the 1800's when the MV's were written!
There is a myth but it aint and wasn't in 1611!It was a devine intervention! The myth started in the 1800's when the MV's were written!
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
William S. Correa: //The myth started in the 1800's when the MV's were written!//
Interesting myth. The first MV (Modern Version) myth was in
1762 followed in 1769 that the KJV1762 and KJV1769 were
'like' the KJV1611 Edition. In fact, the KJV1762 and KJV1769
were the first of the MVs!!!
BTW, more MVs were translated in the 1900s then in the 1800s.
(Interesting double standard: the MV's were 'written'
and the KJVs were 'translated'???)
Interesting myth. The first MV (Modern Version) myth was in
1762 followed in 1769 that the KJV1762 and KJV1769 were
'like' the KJV1611 Edition. In fact, the KJV1762 and KJV1769
were the first of the MVs!!!
BTW, more MVs were translated in the 1900s then in the 1800s.
(Interesting double standard: the MV's were 'written'
and the KJVs were 'translated'???)
Ed Edwards said:
Actually, there was a time when the KJV was a so-called MV and it was also the butt of heresies and blasphemies like the KJVO myth. As for the written/translated error, Ed, that is quite understandable when you take into account Mr. Correa's error-filled viewpoints and the guesswork that goes into the KJVO myth!
Cailiosa said:The King James Bible was translated mostly from the Bishop's Bible, the changed very little from this (I believe the Bishops BIble was in Greek) They also used for reference the Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, and Great Bible. I believe all of these came from manuscripts that had been carefully copied as one manuscript wore out... ect another was carefully copied word for word. Jot and tittle for jot and tittle
I cannot for the life of me remember what that manuscript is called and it could take me a really long time to find it.
Are you by chance talking about the Textus Receptus, the Greek text that was compiled from the various texts and readings used in translating the KJV?
And BTW, the Bishops' Bible was in English, not Greek. There were Greek tests used in translating this Bible just like in the translation of any other Bible. But the text was English, very much like the English found in the original 1611 KJV.
Ed Edwards said:
Well, Ed, at least it is entertaining if not truthful.
I did basically agree with one single statement in the tract, and that was the statement "The first attack against the Word of God was made in the Garden of Eden." After that, eveything degenerated into fable and myth supporting the KJVO stance. The tract, just like the majority of Chick's later "work," is completely lacking in truth while being awash in myth and error. Didn't Chick at one time publish some truthful tracts about salvation? Too bad he left the salvation tracts behind and jumped onto the LKVO myth. He really should have stuck with something he was qualified to teach.
:Fish:
Cailiosa:I personally believe that only the KJV is the inspired word of God,
BASIS, please?
but I am not here to try and change your belief.
Then why mention it?
I believe that someone can be saved through any other version, and that they can grow, by using those bibles.
Then, how canya believe the KJV is the only inspired version? What about people who don't read English?
I just wanted to make ya'll think about it really quick. I know that many KJVO's don't know a lot about what they are talking about,
That's obvious.
but it would be very very good for anyone curious, to read In Awe of Thy Word, understanding the King James Bible, it's mysteries and history by G.A. Riplinger.
Riplinger is a fraud. Her junk contains more errors than an episode of Celebrity Jeopardy.
I do think that if you truelly desire to know more about God you will use the KJV, but that's just my opinion.
You're entitled to it here in the USA. There's no govt. penalty for being wrong.
BASIS, please?
but I am not here to try and change your belief.
Then why mention it?
I believe that someone can be saved through any other version, and that they can grow, by using those bibles.
Then, how canya believe the KJV is the only inspired version? What about people who don't read English?
I just wanted to make ya'll think about it really quick. I know that many KJVO's don't know a lot about what they are talking about,
That's obvious.
but it would be very very good for anyone curious, to read In Awe of Thy Word, understanding the King James Bible, it's mysteries and history by G.A. Riplinger.
Riplinger is a fraud. Her junk contains more errors than an episode of Celebrity Jeopardy.
I do think that if you truelly desire to know more about God you will use the KJV, but that's just my opinion.
You're entitled to it here in the USA. There's no govt. penalty for being wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith M
Yes you do, Mr. Correa. Your KJVO myth is based on lots and lots of guesswork!
The mind of Christ dosen't guess!
And it should be obvious to you that CHRIST isn't KJVO.
And I have let it be in me! According to the Holy Word!
But there's no basis in the Holy Word for the KJVO myth.
"It's Only Make-Believe."
...Conway Twitty
Originally Posted by Keith M
Yes you do, Mr. Correa. Your KJVO myth is based on lots and lots of guesswork!
The mind of Christ dosen't guess!
And it should be obvious to you that CHRIST isn't KJVO.
And I have let it be in me! According to the Holy Word!
But there's no basis in the Holy Word for the KJVO myth.
"It's Only Make-Believe."
...Conway Twitty
Cailiosa:Is there proof that the Apocrypha was in the orginal 1611 KJV?
Yes...in every extant genuine copy of the AV 1611.
Because all I have ever read and heard is that the translaters of the 1611 KJV considered the apocrypha to not be the inspired Word of God, but rather they believed it to be the words of men, and that they didn't put it in the Bible because of this.
The Apocrypha ARE there, between the Testaments.
I have NEVER heard before that the original 1611 KJV Bible included the Apocrypha.
NOW, you have.
Many bookstores, and even Wally World, sell the Hendrickson's reprint of the AV 1611. It indeed contains the Apocrypha. I once had the chance to look through a GENUINE AV 1611, and I don't think I've ever handled a BABY more gently. Yes, the Apocrypha are there.
Yes...in every extant genuine copy of the AV 1611.
Because all I have ever read and heard is that the translaters of the 1611 KJV considered the apocrypha to not be the inspired Word of God, but rather they believed it to be the words of men, and that they didn't put it in the Bible because of this.
The Apocrypha ARE there, between the Testaments.
I have NEVER heard before that the original 1611 KJV Bible included the Apocrypha.
NOW, you have.
Many bookstores, and even Wally World, sell the Hendrickson's reprint of the AV 1611. It indeed contains the Apocrypha. I once had the chance to look through a GENUINE AV 1611, and I don't think I've ever handled a BABY more gently. Yes, the Apocrypha are there.
Cailiosa:Also over and over again the other versions omit important things like the fact that it is through Christ that we become the sons of God. Gal. 4:7 should say through Christ.
Many other versions say. "through GOD", or "GOD made you...." Is Christ not God?
And I know there is a place where they have taken out Jesus' name and put in Satans.... I'm trying to find it...
I'll tell ya...ISAIAH 14:12, where newer versions read "morning star" or "day star". Some KJVO literature says that, because the KJV reads "Lucifer" at this verse, and that Jesus calls Himself the bright and morning star in Rev. 22:16, that newer versions are substituting Christ for Satan by saying "morning star". This is a LIE by those KJVOs! They skip right be Rev. 2:28..."and I will give him the MORNING STAR. Obviously, Christ isn't gonna give Himself away! He has given OF Himself much more than we deserve! This is in reference to some other morning star, obviously.
There are some things the KJVO authors won't tell ya, and don't wantcha to know, because the TRUTH reveals them to be frauds.
And what about Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
And, lastly, the AV 1611 has a marginal note for "lucifer", which reads, "or, O day starre".
I suggest you take every one of your Riplinger books & put'em on your bookshelf under "Fiction".
Many other versions say. "through GOD", or "GOD made you...." Is Christ not God?
And I know there is a place where they have taken out Jesus' name and put in Satans.... I'm trying to find it...
I'll tell ya...ISAIAH 14:12, where newer versions read "morning star" or "day star". Some KJVO literature says that, because the KJV reads "Lucifer" at this verse, and that Jesus calls Himself the bright and morning star in Rev. 22:16, that newer versions are substituting Christ for Satan by saying "morning star". This is a LIE by those KJVOs! They skip right be Rev. 2:28..."and I will give him the MORNING STAR. Obviously, Christ isn't gonna give Himself away! He has given OF Himself much more than we deserve! This is in reference to some other morning star, obviously.
There are some things the KJVO authors won't tell ya, and don't wantcha to know, because the TRUTH reveals them to be frauds.
And what about Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
And, lastly, the AV 1611 has a marginal note for "lucifer", which reads, "or, O day starre".
I suggest you take every one of your Riplinger books & put'em on your bookshelf under "Fiction".
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Yes, I use the KJV1611 Edition daily:
Romans 1:3 (KJV1611 Edition):
Concerning his Sonne Iesus Christ our Lord,
which was made of the seed of Dauid
according to the flesh,
IN AWE OF THY WORD: Understanding the King
James Bible, Its Mystery and History, Letter by Letter
(AVPublicationsCorp, 2003)
(I note the full HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/,
wasn't in my hands until March 2004. It is copyrighted in 2003
after AWE was copyrighted. Evidently Ms Riplinger had access
to parts of the HCSB prior to it's copyrighting, specifically the
New Testament.)
Anyway, on page 1134 of AWE Sister G.A.Riplinger says:
//The letter 'I' represents that which is 'in' in Genesis 1:1.
It sometimes pictures the interior self, seen in 'I',
'it', 'is', and 'itself' all seen early in Genesis.
It shows the 'I' inside 'sin', 'skin' and 'kin'.//
Unfortunately our dear Sister forgot that in the FIRST KJV, the
KJV1611 Edition, that there was no distinction between
the 'I' and the 'J', that both looked like the current 'i'.
The vowel 'I' and the constant 'J' were pronounced as they are
pronounced today, but both were represented by the 'I'.
On page 1136 Ms Riplinger goes on to tell how the 'J' is such
a good letter, reminding us always of our blessed Lord and
Savior Messiah Jesus. But it was Iesus in the
REAL KJV, the KJV1611 Edition.
So this poor Dr. of Domestic Science is way out in left field
here producing ideas that are COUNTER to the KJV1611 Edition.
Romans 1:3 (KJV1611 Edition):
Concerning his Sonne Iesus Christ our Lord,
which was made of the seed of Dauid
according to the flesh,
IN AWE OF THY WORD: Understanding the King
James Bible, Its Mystery and History, Letter by Letter
(AVPublicationsCorp, 2003)
(I note the full HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/,
wasn't in my hands until March 2004. It is copyrighted in 2003
after AWE was copyrighted. Evidently Ms Riplinger had access
to parts of the HCSB prior to it's copyrighting, specifically the
New Testament.)
Anyway, on page 1134 of AWE Sister G.A.Riplinger says:
//The letter 'I' represents that which is 'in' in Genesis 1:1.
It sometimes pictures the interior self, seen in 'I',
'it', 'is', and 'itself' all seen early in Genesis.
It shows the 'I' inside 'sin', 'skin' and 'kin'.//
Unfortunately our dear Sister forgot that in the FIRST KJV, the
KJV1611 Edition, that there was no distinction between
the 'I' and the 'J', that both looked like the current 'i'.
The vowel 'I' and the constant 'J' were pronounced as they are
pronounced today, but both were represented by the 'I'.
On page 1136 Ms Riplinger goes on to tell how the 'J' is such
a good letter, reminding us always of our blessed Lord and
Savior Messiah Jesus. But it was Iesus in the
REAL KJV, the KJV1611 Edition.
So this poor Dr. of Domestic Science is way out in left field
here producing ideas that are COUNTER to the KJV1611 Edition.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Eliyahu said:
The NIV says in Gal 4:6:
" ... [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts ... "
If a source has or doesn't have 'through Christ' in Verse 7,
the message of God about our bleoved Lord and Savior, Messiah
Iesus, right in verse 6. BTW, verse 6 is so much better than
any version of verse 7 relaying the Blessed Trinity:
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, all three
of which are mentioned in verse 7.
[/FONT]
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Amen, Brother Trotter -- Preach it! :thumbs:Trotter said:
Good cross-post!! :thumbs:
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Daily use of the KJV1611:
Gal 4:8 (KJV1611 edition):
Howbeit, then when ye knew not God, yee did seruice
vnto them which by nature are no Gods.
Gal 4:8 (KJV1769 Edition):
Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves
to those who by nature are not gods.
Notice that the capital "G" on 'no Gods' should be reserved
for the Holy God, Lord of Lord and King of Kings
and NOT used for 'no gods'. The KJV1769 Edition
corrects this oops.
Keith M: //Actually, there was a time when the KJV was a so-called MV
and it was also the butt of heresies and blasphemies ... //
Amen, Brother Keith M -- Preach it! :thumbs:
Yes, that part is kept out of the myths about the KJVs.
The Journey from Texts to Translations (Baker Academic, 1999)
page 313 quotes:
Quote L.A. Weigle "English Versions since 1611" in CHB, 3:361
as saying:
//For eighty years after its publication in
1611, the King James version endured
bitter attacks. It was denounced as theologically
unsound and ecclesiastically
biased, as truckling to the king and
unduly deferring to his belief in witchcraft,
as untrue to the Hebrew text and
relying too much on the Septuagint. The
personal integrity of the translaors was
inpugned.//
Gal 4:8 (KJV1611 edition):
Howbeit, then when ye knew not God, yee did seruice
vnto them which by nature are no Gods.
Gal 4:8 (KJV1769 Edition):
Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves
to those who by nature are not gods.
Notice that the capital "G" on 'no Gods' should be reserved
for the Holy God, Lord of Lord and King of Kings
and NOT used for 'no gods'. The KJV1769 Edition
corrects this oops.
Keith M: //Actually, there was a time when the KJV was a so-called MV
and it was also the butt of heresies and blasphemies ... //
Amen, Brother Keith M -- Preach it! :thumbs:
Yes, that part is kept out of the myths about the KJVs.
The Journey from Texts to Translations (Baker Academic, 1999)
page 313 quotes:
Quote L.A. Weigle "English Versions since 1611" in CHB, 3:361
as saying:
//For eighty years after its publication in
1611, the King James version endured
bitter attacks. It was denounced as theologically
unsound and ecclesiastically
biased, as truckling to the king and
unduly deferring to his belief in witchcraft,
as untrue to the Hebrew text and
relying too much on the Septuagint. The
personal integrity of the translaors was
inpugned.//
- Status