"God's Word" before 1611

Exactly why I didn't answer Jim's post. Opinions can be found for both sides. It seems so funny how the KJVo's are so indoctrinated to think that there is only one version...sad. Very sad.

 

Woops... They became apostate after they authorized and institutionalized the KJV and outlawed the Geneva? </font>[/QUOTE]Wow, that says an awful lot about the KJV, doesn't it?

 

No joke.

Okay, let's ask the question ONE MORE TIME (what is this about 198 times for me?)

WHAT was the Word-for-word PERFECT Bible in English in 1605?

If the KJVo cannot answer THIS, then their theory is flawed. PERIOD.

 

Sorry, I haven't been reading, other than the above post by Phillip, which caught my eye...but as I've said hundreds of times before---

I came from my Mama, who came from hers, who came from hers, who came from hers, etc, etc. I have cousins who may have some similar traits, but they are not my exact bloodline. Now, that's how I see my Bible. Like begats like.

Whatever the kjBible came from may be okay, but the Lord gave me mine 50yrs ago. The very fact so much hoopla is being made over it proves I've got a real Bible.

Why y'all always trying to start sumptin' about that blessed old Book that you "say" you love sooo much?! Well, you don't need to answer...it'll just be more mockery...

 

No one oon the board has said you don't have a real Bible. Of course you have a real Bible! The KJV is indeed a real Bible!

Most of the hoopla, though, is KJVO's making claims about non-KJV translations, not the other way around. However, non-KJVO's on this board seldom make comments about the KJV per se. Most of their comments are in regards to the false and unscriptural doctrine of KJVOism.

Again, your either failing to discern, or choosing to not discern, between the KJV and KJVOism. I absolutely love the KJV. In fact, the KJV is sitting right here, right now, in front of me, open to Jeremiah 29. I absolutely love my KJV. I love it so much that I will defend it to the day I die. That means I have an obligation to defend it from the false doctrine of KJVOism.

 

Granny said "I came from my Mama, who came from hers, who came from hers, who came from hers, etc, etc. I have cousins who may have some similar traits, but they are not my exact bloodline. Now, that's how I see my Bible. Like begats like."

Yet you are different from your mother, who is different again from her mother, and so on. You are not a line of inerrant identical clones.

 

Here goes AGAIN, what was the letter perfect Word-of-God in 1605 in English? (Number 199)

 

I've been trying to find that out since I left KJVOism Phillip.

I've also been trying to find out which KJV is the perfect KJV.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say Psalm 12:6-7 really IS about God's words. This would make the KJVO myth dead in the water, because God first presented His words in proto-English during the AD 600s. Every written English version since then has differed from its predecessors...and every major one of them, from Wycliffe's translation onward are extant, so we can compare them. NO TWO ARE ALIKE! Therefore, the KJVO who insists Ps.12:6-7 is about God's words shoots his/her own myth in the foot. What generation isn't covered by "unto ALL generations"?

 

GG, I don't think anyone here would mock you, or the KJV. It, as many of the MV's are, is a reliable translation. Yet to try and negate the MV's with one version onlyism is not a doctrine that is Biblically correct in any shape or fashion. Fact is fact and opinion cannot negate it except in the minds that are not honest enough to test those facts. No attack is intended on you or the KJV here, as I use the KJV as my Bible of preference, and I hope you won't take it as such.

 

natters, nicely put. The KJV is not a clone of any other Bible, as it varies from many of its predecessors.

 

"What stain? It can be shown by some sources that the Church of England never baptized infants until the Presbyterians influenced Parliment, after James was dead and buried."

It was immersion that was probably the practice until old John Lightfoot casted the decising vote among the assembly of 'divines' for sprinkling, which then became the law of the land under the oppresive puritan rule.

 

No doubt the Anglican church is, as one writer said, the most glorious church in christendom......but still it is christendom, and many of the translators were not even saved, and had a part in the persecuting of dissenters. why should their version be held up above every other?

 

Does anyone know why it came into being and the "glorious" reason?

Henry the eighth and his many wives ring any wedding bells?

Here is the Reader's Digest version:

He wanted an annulment/divorce from his wife and the Pope wouldn't allow it.

Henry the eighth solution: Bah, humbug with the pope and the Church of Rome, I'll make my own Church of England and give myself a divorce.

To this day the Church of England suffers from an identity crisis, the Anglo-Catholic sector of the Church of England (wannabe Catholic) and the Evangelical sector (wannabe Protestant).

Neither of which is either.

HankD

 

The Protestant Church of England actually had it's beginnings after Henry's death so it is not accurate to say it was founded by Henry. Henry's Anglican Church was a Independant Catholic Church.

After his death, Archbishop Cranmer moved the Church into the Protestant Flock and the 39 articles of Religion is a classic Reformed confession. They also had many notable martyrs, Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer as well as evangelists John Wesley, Charles Wesley, George Whitefield and hymn writers such as John Newton.

 

We're all descended from Adam, and from Noah.

So much hoopla is being made over lots of things. Does hoopla over the Catholic Church prove it's the real, exclusive church? Does hoopla over alcohol prove its validity? Does hoopla over speaking in tongues prove its genuineness? Does hoopla over gay marriage prove it's valid? Hoopla is not proof of anything.

 

Funny, how the KJVo can make such a racket, right up until you ask them:

What is the word-for-word perfect Bible in 1605? (question asked 200 times)

Eventually I'll have to do this like McDonalds, instead of 30 million hamburgers sold, it will become I've asked this question millions and millions of times.

Any KJVo's want to REALLY answer this with a simple answer and not a run-around? I don't think you HAVE an answer.

 

Natters,
The way I see it, the KJVo are the ones who start the Hoopla when we simply mention an MV as being the Word of God. How often have threads been hijacked for KJVo?

Then when we do post a thread to ask them questions, like this one, they beat around the bush, but NOBODY can answer the simple question.

I guess if Hoopla is the criteria for the real thing, then Santa CLaus is real.

 

Not according to my sources. What is your source?
Are you thinking of the Episcopal Church perhaps?

Even the official UK Parliament’s education website uses the words The Church of England was founded by King Henry VIII

HankD

 

You are correct according to my history lessons, HankD. Although the Archbishop did help Henry with the development of the church and was instrumental in pushing the logistics through; Henry did in fact begin the Anglican Church.

I find no evidence of the reformation having any major part of the beginning of the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church itself was well known for its attacks on those who did not follow.