Finally, an answer to the KJV issue!

[tyndale1946]

The post was named... Finally an answer to the KJV issue...
We never did get the final answer did we?... Brother Glen

[ May 15, 2002, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

[DocCas]

The problem, of course, was that the original poster's (Daniel) answer was no answer at all! It failed to address any of the issues regarding underlying texts, translation techniques, and versions. It was a typical "no answer" answer found all too often on forums such as this.

 

[DocCas]

I believe the KJV is superior to the modern versions due to the superiority of its underlying texts, it superior translation technique, and its superior transmission of grammatical indicators from the original to the receptor language.

And that is my final answer!

 

[tyndale1946]

"AMEN"...Brother Glen

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
Anyway, don't you think the Catholics would have been more likely to have changed their "bibles", since they thought tradition was more important than the word of God, than Anglicans, who took it as their final authority (though they got things wrong)?

I can grant your position on the Anglicans because it really doesn't matter for my argument. My only caveat would be to say that biblical Christianity does not persecute Baptists and the like.

However, it is your last paragraph (cited above) that shows my point. The manuscripts found in the Vatican date to the 2nd-4th centuries and were untouched since then. In other words, teh Catholic church, during its heyday of doctrine changing and persecution, left those manuscripts untouched and unchanged. That is undeniable. So they answer to your question is, No it is not more likely that they would have changed them. In fact, it is clear that they did not change them.

 

[DocCas]

The Vaticanus manuscript is dated to the mid 4th century AD (350). That represents a date after the unholy wedding of Church and State by Constantine (325) but prior to the philosophical underpinnings of the RCC (The City of God by Agustine) and the rise of the Papacy to its present concept of a universal bishop under Leo I (500).

It is doubtful that the RCC modified Vaticanus in any great degree, but, of course, the Roman Catholic bibles do no follow Vaticanus, which is a representitive of the Alexandrian textform, but the Western textform, which is a combination of the Alexandrian and Byzantine textforms.

It is quite obvious from the textual evidence that the Alexandrian textform is a local corruption caused by the lack of cross comparison and correction due to the dangers of Christians traveling in the first 3 centuries of the era of Christendom, and the Western text represents a partially corrected text which arose after the acceptence of Christendom in the time of Constantine and Bishop Sylvester (300-350).

The original Byzantine text eventually completely replaced both the Alexandrian and the Greek witnesses to the partially corrected Western textform, but, due to the monolithic nature of the RCC, once the Western textform was translated into Latin, and that text edited by Jerome, it was frozen by the Authoritative Magisterium and no further cross comparisons and corrections were allowed.

It would be an error to assume either the Alexandrian or Western textforms were deliberately corrupted by the RCC. In fact, the opposite is true. They refused to make any changes, even to correct the errors of the Western Textform.

When the Roman Catholic cleric Jerome was commissioned by the Bishop of Rome to produce a new Latin version, he wrote a letter in 383 A. D. to the Pope who commissioned the translation stating: "You compel me to make a new work out of an old so that after so many copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout the whole world I am as it were to occupy the post of arbiter, and seeing they differ from one another am to determine which of them are in agreement with the original Greek. If they maintain that confidence is to be reposed in the Latin exemplars, let them answer which, for there are almost as many copies of the translations as manuscripts. But if the truth is to be sought from the majority, why not rather go back to the Greek original, and correct the blunders which have been made by incompetent translators, made worse rather then better by the presumption of unskillful correctors, and added to or altered by careless scribes." It was Jerome's contention that in his day a number of manuscripts existed that had been "altered," "corrected," and otherwise corrupted by "careless scribes" and "incompetent translators," and the only way to insure the new Latin translation was to be accurate was to allow him to go to the majority of the Greek manuscripts that were in common usage in his time. Unfortunately, his Roman masters did not allow him to do so, and his Vulgate was simply a revision of the already existing corrupt Latin versions.

 

[Ransom]

Bartholomew said:

What??? Did you REALLY mean that??? So there's the NIV, NASB, NRSV, RSV, RV, TEV, etc.... and yet you say there's only one??? WHICH ONE???

These are multiple translations of a single literary work, the Bible.

Certainly: The perfectly inspired and preserved word of God, as now found in the Authorised King James Bible.

Thank you for defining your terms. Now I will feel free to ignore your artificially limiting definition, which demands that I accept there was no Bible before the King James.

I'M ARGUING FOR THE PERFECTION OF SOMETHING.
The perfection of what?

At this point, nothing.

First of all, you just contradicted yourself. You're arguing for something or nothing. You can't do both.

But taking your second answer at face value: In other words, you are arguing an even more radically anti-Biblical view than the one you're criticizing me for, I at least say something is the Bible perfectly preserved. I simply dispute the KJV-onlyists' version of things since it is without sufficient historical, theological, or textual support to persuade me to abandon my translation of choice. You, on the other hand, when you're not busy contradicting yourself, say you are arguing for the perfection of nothing.

Are you not the one who asked where I got "complete uncertainty" from your arguments? You just admitted it. So, now that you have admitted utter skepticism, I think this discussion has run its course.

[ May 16, 2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[Bartholomew]

Bartholomew:What??? Did you REALLY mean that??? So there's the NIV, NASB, NRSV, RSV, RV, TEV, etc.... and yet you say there's only one??? WHICH ONE???
Ransom:These are multiple translations of a single literary work, the Bible.

No, they are not. They are translations of different texts, different manuscripts, etc. And even where they follow the same manuscript, they sometimes disagree. WHERE is this "one Bible" you keep talking about? Which "ONE"?

Bartholomew:Certainly: The perfectly inspired and preserved word of God, as now found in the Authorised King James Bible.
Ransom:Thank you for defining your terms. Now I will feel free to ignore your artificially limiting definition, which demands that I accept there was no Bible before the King James.

At least I have a definition. You don't. Or else you do, and despite REPEATED questions, you refuse to explain what it is. YOU said you believed there was just ONE bible, and it had been perfectly preserved: which ONE, and WHERE IS IT???

Bartholomew:I'M ARGUING FOR THE PERFECTION OF SOMETHING.
Ransom:The perfection of what?
Bartholomew:At this point, nothing.
Ransom:First of all, you just contradicted yourself. You're arguing for something or nothing. You can't do both.

Go on then. Be pedantic. I will correct my imprecise wording. I should have said: "At this point, nothing specifically". Please stop trying to twist my words. (And note: "nothing specifically" does NOT mean "specifically nothing"). I'm sorry you couldn't see what I meant (or you could, and you deliberately twisted my words), even though I spent much time explainig it. When arguing about preservation, I am NOT specifically arguing for the perfection of the AV. I am arguing that the Bible CONSISTENTLY speaks of writings (NOT the "originals") that are completey true and without error, and that God would preserve them. I am arguing that a perfect God would perfectly preserve his perfect word. I am NOT using this as a disguise to argue for a perfect AV, as you seem to think - it's just that it's the only candidate anyone ever offers. This is why I CONTINUALLY ask you to show me your "perfectly preserved Bible" that you CONTINUOUSLY claim to believe in, and we will compare it with the AV. If there is more evindece that YOUR "bible" is perfect than there is that the AV is perfect, I will defect to your side. Honestly.

Ransom:I simply dispute the KJV-onlyists' version of things since it is without sufficient historical, theological, or textual support to persuade me to abandon my translation of choice.

Exactly - that's what it's all about. You don't want to abandom the "bible" of YOUR choice. Of course there isn't sufficient evidence to convince you to change - just like there isn't sufficicent evidnece to convince the atheist to change (although he makes up silly arguments that he thinks will do). He wants his way. The fact that he has no evidence that there is NO God doesn't bother him. Just as the fact that you have NO evidence that God didn't perfectly preserve his word doesn't bother you.

Ransom: So, now that you have admitted utter skepticism, I think this discussion has run its course.

Now, either you have massive difficulty understanding my words (I'm sorry if I'm so unclear), or you're just trying to ridicule me becuase I won't sit down and stop demanding the same treatment for your opinions as you demad for mine. As any honest reader will see, I NOT utterly sceptical - I utterly BELIEVE the AV. Which one, perfectly preserved bible do you believe?

 

[Bartholomew]

Scott J:It seems that one of the basic false premises of KJVOnlyism is the notion that only one set of words (definition #1) can accurately communicate the Word (definition #2).
Bartholomew:No - that is your straw man. Of course different words can communicate the same thing; but many Bible versions communicate DIFFERENT things in their pages
Scott: No. The faithful translations we have do NOT communicate a different faith or different doctrines. No sound doctrine hinges on a single verse or passage of scripture so when the versions disagree at one place, it does not follow that one version or the other is subversive.

That was clever, Scott - you argued against something I didn't say. I never said ANY doctrine was denied in other versions; or that ANY hinged on one particular verse. I said that the bibles say DIFFERENT things. For example: Who fell from heaven in Isaiah 14? "Lucifer" (AV)? "Morning star" (NIV)? "Shining star" (NLT)? "Light-bringer and day star" (AMP)? Well? The NIV, NLT and AMP say DIFFERENT things to the AV. It is not the same thing being communicated differently; it is a DIFFERENT thing. Also, how many chariots did the Philistines have (1 Sam 13:5)? 3,000 (NIV)? Or 30,000 (AV)??? These are NOT the same!!! there are endless other examples. If AV-onlyism is about us not being able to see how different words can communicate the same things, please tell me: How does "3,000" mean the same as "30,000"???

Scott: BTW, I do read/study the KJV, NASB, NKJV, and other resources together. IF you have done so with any regularity, you would realize that they do not communicate a different message at ALL.

Not "at ALL"??? 3,000 = 30,000???

Scott: I have already agreed that we don't know what God's words were in the originals.

So how can you be so sure that they didn't read the same as the AV (in another language, of course)? And where is the biblical evidence that God left people his word in such a way that they could never be sure what really was his word???

No one can conclude from the available evidence what the exact words of the originals were. Your assertion that the KJV is the only book worthy of being called the Word of God assumes a great deal while ignoring concrete evidence and errors of logic.

Hold on a minute... If nobody can be sure what the original words were, then how can YOU be sure that they didn't read the same as the AV?

Bartholomew:YOU are being extremely presumptuous in assuming that completely unprovable idea.
Scott: What is unprovable? That the KJV is not the same as the originals? That is absolutely provable without a shadow of a doubt.

OK... so you CAN'T be sure what the originals said... and yet you ARE sure that they didn't agree with the AV? HOW??? And you said I had made errors of logic...

Bartholomew:Where is the biblical evidence that God chose not to give this to mankind? Scott:God did not say He would preserve the original words and history confirms that He didn't.

Yes, he did:

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.(Matt 24:35)
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.(Mark 13:31)
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.(Luke 21:33)

God repeatedly promised to preserve his word. why do you think the Bible is called "God's WORD"? And if he didn't promise to preserve his words, WHAT DID HE PROMISE TO PRESERVE???

Bartholomew:Whatever, the result is the same, and this proves my point - if you don't believe God perfectly preserved his word, it was poitless him giving it perfectly in the first place.
Scott:No. It does not prove your point. God chose to deliver His Word in a certain way. He chose to have it preserved in a different way. Just because you think it was "pointless" does not mean that God did not have His own purpose that you don't see.

And just because YOU can't see why he would have preserved the Bible in the AV, that doesn't mean he didn't have a purpose YOU can't see. (Though why you can't see it is beyond me). Anyway, what IS this purpose that I can't see?

Scott:I do not believe in the perfect preservation of the words. My beliefs are consistent with scripture

Which scripture???

 

[Ransom]

Bartholomew said:

Ransom:These are multiple translations of a single literary work, the Bible.

No, they are not. They are translations of different texts, different manuscripts, etc.

All copies of a single literary work, the Bible.

At least I have a definition. You don't. Or else you do, and despite REPEATED questions, you refuse to explain what it is.

I am in full agreement with chapter 1 of the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

YOU said you believed there was just ONE bible, and it had been perfectly preserved: which ONE, and WHERE IS IT???

Once again, and like most if not all KJV-onlyists, you confuse the universal (the Bible) with the particular (this Bible). Your inability to distinguish between these two categories makes meaningful and intelligent conversation difficult. Quite frankly, if you are going to wade into this subject, you ought to know better than to fall into this trap.

Go on then. Be pedantic. I will correct my imprecise wording. I should have said: "At this point, nothing specifically".

And yet you reserve the right to demand specifics from me?

I must remind you that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. That would be you, since you are the one attempting to invest special authority in a particular translation of the Bible.

Please stop trying to twist my words. (And note: "nothing specifically" does NOT mean "specifically nothing").

And yet, "specifically nothing" is specifically what you have so far provided in support of your claims. All you seem interested in doing is trying to create doubt in the minds of others. "Yea, hath God said?" as the KJV-onlyists are so eager to hiss.

I am NOT using this as a disguise to argue for a perfect AV, as you seem to think - it's just that it's the only candidate anyone ever offers.

Blatantly false. I offered an alternative. You simply rejected it because it didn't fit with your presupposition that "perfectly preserved" must mean "perfectly preserved in a particular copy, edition, translation," or what have you.

Since you have not established the validity of the presupposition, you are begging the question.

This is why I CONTINUALLY ask you to show me your "perfectly preserved Bible" that you CONTINUOUSLY claim to believe in, and we will compare it with the AV.

On what grounds have you determined the AV to be the standard against which it must be judged? You are begging the question again.

Exactly - that's what it's all about. You don't want to abandom the "bible" of YOUR choice.

And you want me to give it up in favour of your choice. What makes your choice more authoritative?

Of course there isn't sufficient evidence to convince you to change - just like there isn't sufficicent evidnece to convince the atheist to change

Yeah yeah yeah. Not accepting your subjective preference of translation is the same as unbelief. I've heard it all before from people angrier than you.

 

[DocCas]

People, please, use the "quote" function. It makes reading the responses much eaiser. If you don't know how to use it, just ask. I will be glad to explain it to you.

Thomas Cassidy
Bible Versions/Translations Moderator
Baptist Board Administrator

 

[Bartholomew]

Ransom:These are multiple translations of a single literary work, the Bible.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Bartholomew:No, they are not. They are translations of different texts, different manuscripts, etc.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Ransom:All copies of a single literary work, the Bible.

</font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]

No, they are not. The Vaticanus manuscript is not copied from the same sources as , say, the manuscripts used by the AV translators. Many manuscripts, versions, translations are taken from DIFFERENT sources. They are NOT all taken from the same "single literary work". If they are, then what is this "single literary work"??? Does this "single literary work" say that the Philistines had 3,000 chariots, or 30,000 chariots (1 Samuel 13:5)? Which is it? Please consult your "perfectly preserved" bible and tell me what it says. If it is really a "SINGLE" literary work, it will not say both.

Bartholomew:At least I have a definition. You don't. Or else you do, and despite REPEATED questions, you refuse to explain what it is.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Ransom:I am in full agreement with chapter 1 of the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

</font>[/QUOTE]

Please answer the question. WHAT and WHERE is your "perfectly preserved bible" you keep talking about???

Bartholomew:YOU said you believed there was just ONE bible, and it had been perfectly preserved: which ONE, and WHERE IS IT???
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Ransom:Once again, and like most if not all KJV-onlyists, you confuse the universal (the Bible) with the particular (this Bible). Your inability to distinguish between these two categories makes meaningful and intelligent conversation difficult. Quite frankly, if you are going to wade into this subject, you ought to know better than to fall into this trap.

</font>[/QUOTE]

If anyone with even a half-open mind is reading this thread, they will see my problem. I PERSISTENTLY ask you to show me this bible you keep talking about; and I PERSISTENTLY agree to compare it with my Bible. However, you give me a hard time for not being able to distinguish "the Bible" from the AV. Well, the reason I can't distinguish it is because you WON'T tell me what your "bible" is! So, for the fiftieth time, WHAT AND WHERE IS THIS "BIBLE"???

Bartholomew:Go on then. Be pedantic. I will correct my imprecise wording. I should have said: "At this point, nothing specifically".
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Ransom:And yet you reserve the right to demand specifics from me?

</font>[/QUOTE]

Ransom, if my words are so hard to understand, please tell me. Otherwise, stop trying to twist what I say. I will lay it down again: I believe God perfectly preserved his word. At this point, I am willing to look at ANYTHING, and see if it is likely to be this preserved word. I don't care WHAT it is - I will consider it. However, it is only the bad old nasty AV-onlyists who will show me a candidate for this perfectly preserved word. I keep asking you for yours, but you never tell me. So, on the basis of the evidence before me, I agree with them. It is only AFTER this is the only canditate placed before me that I start arguing specifically for it.
But I gave you, specifically, the Bible I believe. If anyone reading this thread has a half-open mind, they will conclude that the only reason you refuse to show me yours is because you don't have one.

Ransom:I must remind you that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. That would be you, since you are the one attempting to invest special authority in a particular translation of the Bible.

Now, Ransom, the problem is that you keep mixing up two different issues. The FIRST issue is, "has God perfectly preserved his word?" I can prove that he HAS from scripture. You say you agree.
So, the SECOND issue is, "where IS this word?" Well, where do you say? I have promised to give me my evidence that it is in the AV WHEN you tell me where YOU think it is. But how can we compare evidence for the AV against the evidence for your "bible", when you won't even tell me WHAT your "perfectly preserved bible" is???

Ransom:And yet, "specifically nothing" is specifically what you have so far provided in support of your claims.

Again, you are confusing the two issues above. I have provided much to prove the first claim. However, I will give you my evidence that the perfectly preserved word of God is in the AV when YOU give me the evidence that it is wherever you think it is. I think any open-minded person will see that it is unreasonable to give you the oportunity to trample over the evidence that the AV is the perfectly preserved word of God unless you give me the opportunity to trample over your evidence that your candidate is the word of God. But you don't really have a candidate, do you? Why not just stop this charade, and join up with the others arguing with me on here? At least they're honest - they claim that God HASN'T perfectly preserved his word.

Ransom:All you seem interested in doing is trying to create doubt in the minds of others. "Yea, hath God said?" as the KJV-onlyists are so eager to hiss.

This is such a silly allegation. I'm telling people they can have ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE about what God really said. Is this what you believe???

Bartholomew:I am NOT using this as a disguise to argue for a perfect AV, as you seem to think - it's just that it's the only candidate anyone ever offers.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Ransom:Blatantly false.

</font>[/QUOTE]

Not so. Show me your "perfectly preserved" bible, and I will consider it. Give me the evidence that it is perfectly preserved, and I will give you the evidence that the AV is perfectly preserved. If your evidence is greater than mine, I will come over to your position.

Bartholomew:This is why I CONTINUALLY ask you to show me your "perfectly preserved Bible" that you CONTINUOUSLY claim to believe in, and we will compare it with the AV.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Ransom:On what grounds have you determined the AV to be the standard against which it must be judged? You are begging the question again.

</font>[/QUOTE]

Because it's the only candidate on the table! If you really had a candidate, you'd show me how the evidence for it was greater than the evidence for the AV, and we'd believe yours instead. However, you seem a little (!!!) reluctant to show me your candidate. Are you affraid the AV will have more evidence than your "bible"???

Bartholomew:Exactly - that's what it's all about. You don't want to abandom the "bible" of YOUR choice.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Ransom:And you want me to give it up in favour of your choice. What makes your choice more authoritative?

</font>[/QUOTE]

Because it's the only candidate I've ever seen. I may have been misled. If so, please show me your candidate and we'll discuss evidence. But it seems you're a little scared to let your "bible" face the spotlight... I wonder why?

Bartholomew:Of course there isn't sufficient evidence to convince you to change - just like there isn't sufficicent evidnece to convince the atheist to change
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Ransom:Yeah yeah yeah. Not accepting your subjective preference of translation is the same as unbelief. I've heard it all before from people angrier than you.

</font>[/QUOTE]

It is the same attitude. If you were really interested in discussing evidence, you'd show me your "bible" and we'd be having a different discussion.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

[ May 17, 2002, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: Bartholomew ]

 

[MissAbbyIFBaptist]

I believe with all my heart that the KJV is the 100% acurate, infalible, inerrent, word of God.
I beleive it is inspired by God. The words "inspired by God" mean that "God breathed"
{see II timothy 3:16, and the first part of Titus 1:2 to prove my point of the Bible's inspiration}
i mean, when you think about it, It makes sense. I mean when you think of all the propocy that was recorded in the Old Testiment, and how it was full filled in the New Testiment {see psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 to see my point} , how can you doubt that these men weren't writting something that wasn't inspired?
And if God said it, then that's good enough for me.
I don't claim to understand the whole Bible, because no one ever will. {if you do understand it all, i'd sure like to meet ya} But what I don't understand I take God's Word for it.
I know some say that the new translations are better because they are easier to understand, but I have read a few books, heard sermons, and saw for myself how the new versions contadict each other, and some even leave out verses.{see the last chapter of revelation, verses 18 and 19 to get my point} I believe that the KJV is complete.
God wouldn't give us something that wasn't complete or cause confusion.
I know some people may not agree with the stand I take. And that dosen't bother me. I am convinced that I have the truth when I read my Bible, and I am determaned never to change or compromise this belief I hold dear to my heart.
The Bible is a saved person's foundation. If they don't have a solid foundation, how can they stand?
saved by grace 1999

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bartholomew,

I think the difficulty in your communication with Ransom is that you fail to distinguish between the Bible and a translation of the Bible. The Bible has existed since its completion at the end of the first century. The translation of the Bible commonly called the AV or the KJV has only existed since 1611. Failing to make this distinction will cause you to misunderstand some basic issues in this discussion. The search for the Bible is not hard. The word of God is in any faithful translation of the original language manuscripts. Therefore, teh KJV can be called "The Bible." The NASB can be called "The Bible." The NIV can be called "The Bible." The NKJV can be called "The Bible." You ask where the Bible is. It is an any faithful translation.

Saved by grace,

2 Tim 3:16 is found in every translation. (It is literally translated only in the NIV incidentally reading "God breathed.") It is absolutely true but says nothing about the KJV in particular. That verse was true long before 1611. I agree with you that the Bible is the true foundation and I will hold to that Bible till the day that I die. I preach it fervently and directly. I call my people to live in conformity with it. And I find it much easier to do that when my people understand the text that is before them. That is why I use the NASB from the pulpit. It makes preaching so much easier.

[ May 16, 2002, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[ChristianCynic]

&lt; I believe with all my heart that the KJV is the 100% acurate, infalible, inerrent, word of God. &gt;

Ain't that somethin'?

&lt; I beleive it is inspired by God. The words "inspired by God" mean that "God breathed" &gt;

If God didn't breath until there was a KJV, then he didn't breathe the breath of life into Adam or anyone else.

&lt; And if God said it, then that's good enough for me. &gt;

Dandy. Now show that that bunch of Anglicans who christened infants and imprisoned and burned those who taught otherwise were the possessors of "the 100% acurate, infalible, inerrent, word of God," and those who used the Geneva Bible or any other had perversion.

&lt; I believe that the KJV is complete. &gt;

With or without the Apocrypha, which the same Anglican translators included?

&lt; God wouldn't give us something that wasn't complete or cause confusion. &gt;

If that's the case, then as much confusion as is seen with the KJV as its source, God didn't 'give' it.

&lt; The Bible is a saved person's foundation. If they don't have a solid foundation, how can they stand? &gt;

I think you can be saved even if you are illiterate. Do you think otherwise?

 

[DocCas]

Last warning. Either use the quote funtion properly or I will begin deleting posts. If you want your posts to stay on the forum, go back and edit them to quote properly.

 

[Roy]

Dr. Cassidy:

Thanks for posting that info on King James. I copied it and put it in my files.

Roy

 

[DocCas]

 

[TomVols]

We're at 11 pages folks. Are we going to do anything but chase our tails?
And Thomas is right, please please please use the quote function. It saves you time and it saves us readers a grave headache.

TomVols
Moderator

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by saved by grace 1999:
I believe with all my heart that the KJV is the 100% acurate, infalible, inerrent, word of God.

Dear Saved:

Where was the "100% acurate, infalible, inerrent, word of God" before 1611?