Great Read

Hello Deacon

First you quoted me.........

Then you said........

The way you interpret what I have said(“the way you see it”), is inaccurate.
I have NEVER said that the KJV is “the only expression of God's word”;
That is putting words in my mouth.

What I have said, is that the KJV, is the English Bible, that I have been “forced” to use, because of what BB Warfield did.
--------------------------------------------------
Then you said in Warfield’s defense.........

You see Rob, I defend the Bible, and you defend Warfield.

But even in these quotes, you can see Warfields error.......

“Revelation is but half revelation unless it be infallibly communicated”
(God only half the work, now scholars must compete His work!)

 

I’m not sure you’ve ever read the Westminster Confession of Faith and I don’t understand why you hold it in such high esteem.

Anyways B.B. Warfield didn’t express anything different than earlier theologians.

Charles Hodge (1797–1878), a predecessor of Warfield’s was a principal of Princeton Theological Seminary prior to Warfield.
He wrote a commentary of the confessions that I quote below.

These same ideas are expressed by the translators of the KJV in its original preface.
PLEASE (!!!) read the preface to the original KJV and you will see the translators of the Authorized version relied on many different sources to gain insight to form their translation.

Rob

 

Hi Pastor Larry

When I call myself KJVO, I am not saying that “the KJV is the only word of God in English”;
What I am saying, is that it is the only Bible readily available to us, that has been translated from the accurate copies of the original autographs.

I have seen some copies of The Geneva Bible, The Bishop's Bible, William Tyndale's Bible etc. and have found them to be equal with the KJV.

Therefore, my position, is a biblical one.

 

Geneva Bible

Tyndale New Testament 1526

I have purchased both of these. CBD has them for nice prices.

 

Hi mcdirector

That is good to know.

Thanks

 

Biblical, how?

I have found the ESV, HCSB, and the NKJV to be "equal" to the KJV. Therefore my position is a "biblical" one also.

 

Evidently, you have not been paying attention to the many threads on the BB that have highlighted just some of the significant differences between the early English translations. If by "equal" you mean that the texts actually correspond, then I don't believe that your statement is a tenable position for a person of integrity to hold.

 

Hi Mexdeaf & franklinmonroe

When I said.........

I meant just that.
I don’t own any of these Bibles, and had only looked up a few verses of Scripture, in order to comparison them to the KJV.

Most recently I gave these Bibles “The Great Bible test”, and found them to pass.
--------------------------------------------------
-THE GREAT BIBLE TEST-
1 John 5:7 (KJV)
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
--------------------------------------------------
1John 5:7 (The Geneva Bible)
7 For there are thre, which beare recorde in heuen, the father, the worde, and the holie golt; and these thre are one.
--------------------------------------------------
1John 5:7 (The Bishop's Bible)
7 For there are three which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holy ghost, and these three are one.”
--------------------------------------------------
1John 5:7 (William Tyndale's Bible)
7 (For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one)
--------------------------------------------------
1John 5:7 (Miles Coverdale's Bible)”The Great Bible”
7 (For there are thre which beare recorde in heauen: the father, the worde, and the holy goost, & these thre are one.)
--------------------------------------------------
1John 5:7 (John Wycliffe’s Bible)
7 For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon.
--------------------------------------------------

 

Nooooooo..... not the "Great Bible Test"

Come on you've really got to be kidding!

Do some research kid, you're just baiting us.

Rob

 

Deacon

Well, take a bite old man.

 

(Mormon founder) Joseph Smith's 'Inspired' Version and many Catholic versions pass. So, you endorse these 'Bible' texts also?

 

I would like to point out a very significant statement that stilllearning made that no one else picked up on (or if they did they wisely avoided it):

Why is it that MV's never "add" to the KJV, they only "Taketh away"? There are no additional verses in any book or chapter in the MV's. I would think that if they were based on "older better manuscripts" there would be something additional. A new thought, or a new verse...something. But, nope... nothing new... just verses that have been taken out. In fact, if a word-for-word comparision were made, the words removed from MV would be in the 64,000 number range.

If the KJV is not the true word of God, then what did English speaking people use for over 200 years? I'm sorry, but I believe God is better and bigger than to let people be without a true Bible for that long.

 

What you are saying is incorrect. The KJV was translated from manifestly inferior manuscripts. In some places, it was translated without any Greek basis whatsoever (such as the end of Revelation in which there are more than a dozen errors in the TR).

YOu haven't shown that. The Bible does not identify the KJV or the TR as the only acceptable text or translation. To the contrary it gives evidence that it isn't the only acceptable translation or text.

 

Really now, and why the "WARNING" then?

Your continual dripping about "rabid-KJVO" and such is sickening.

Would you care to offer your compilation of years of study so anyone could approbate your line of reasoning to hold anything substancial or will this always be your "best"?

 

WARNING! Exchanges within the realm of the MV proponents invites the rabid replies from those who invented the concept to evaluate anyone they claim is "KJVO" by degrees.

Warm.

 

What if it was stated that what is referred to as "MV" was an attack on God's written word? And why is it you spend so much time to "cleverly" detect "attacks" when you should be rather studying the Bible?

God's word defends itsself.

 

We show you what is wrong with every other version than the KJB and then you start to correct the KJB or try to point out errors using corruptions of the text.

Go figure. Your stance is "none are perfect" due to their being a translation, but that IS an attack against the Lord by implicating even He cannot preserve his word in a translation as if He died.:tongue3:

 

I've never seen anyone on here who hates the KJVs. But there are plenty of folks who hate the KJVO position - and justly so.

I also see several folks who hate the word of God in any translation that isn't one of the KJVs. Go figure!

 

So you think God is equated with wicked deceits and trickeries as found , in the NKJV, in Job 24? This does not compute!

 

And those inadvertantly are persistent in attacking the KJB by attacking those who stand upon it's infallability.

The entire line of reasoning behind the labeling of KJVO's is to use sleight of hand tactics to ultimately attack the Bible.:love2: