proverb2317
New Member
Since Noah's Ark? The Bible did not exist then.
-
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!
I am a KJVOs
- Thread starter rockytopva
- Start date
- Status
Since Noah's Ark? The Bible did not exist then.
proverb2317
New Member
strong's is corrupt!And my faithful KJV companion...
proverb2317
New Member
The King James bible IS the word of God. The key word to your error is "the word "preference".John 1:1-3
God doesn't care about OUR preferences. He gave us his word...we will be judged by it. Psalm 12:6:7
proverb2317
New Member
Can you read the words in Psalm 12:6,7..."purified 7 times"? The AV 1611 is what we currently have.
It IS the word of God and we will be judged by it.
"yeshua"". LOL. I can always spot a bible rejector. Are you trying to refer to Jesus?
You fail to prove your claim to be factual or true. I have read in old books where the KJV was referred to as King James' translation or King James' version many years before 1881. From what I have seen, your claim would be factually incorrect.
The KJV is not actually the word of God given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. The word of God was translated into English many years before 1611. The KJV is a English translation of the word of God is the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible are and in the same sense as the post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are.
By believing non-scriptural, extra-biblical claims or opinions concerning the KJV, a person does not demonstrate that He believes what the Bible actually states. Psalm 12:6-7 does not state nor teach human KJV-only reasoning.
Bible-believing Baptists made a revision of the KJV, which they had printed in 1842.
Are you trying to suggest that the words "purified seven times" is somehow supposed to be a reference to the KJV?
The truth that is stated in Psalm 12:6 is the fact that "the words of the LORD are pure words" meaning 100% absolutely and wholly pure. Pure used in the particular context of describing the quality of the words of the LORD given to the prophets and apostles would clearly be asserting 100% absolute, complete purity or perfection with no mixture of any impurities at all. After the assertion of fact, then an illustration, simile, or comparison is given [as] to confirm that truth, not to contradict it by suggesting that there were some impurities in the pure words given to the prophets and apostles. Thus, the phrase "purified seven times" (Ps. 12:6) actually stated clearly concerning silver on earth is used to illustrate and affirm that the words of the LORD are 100% wholly, absolutely, completely, and perfectly pure when given by God. This phrase about the refining or purification of silver obviously and clearly does not contradict the earlier assertion or statement of fact. That phrase does not indicate or assert that the words of the LORD are mostly pure or almost pure with a few impurities, defects, faults, corruptions, errors, or contaminants mixed in so that they needed to go through a gradual improvement or refining process of seven purifications in seven English translations or in seven purifications of the various editions of the KJV.
Words of the LORD asserted to be wholly and completely pure in the positive or absolute degree could not be made more pure. Thus, the quality of being completely pure and completely free from all impurities that is asserted concerning the words of the LORD could not be increased. Nothing can be asserted to be more pure than what is already 100% absolutely pure according to the meaning of pure used in the context. Pure in the positive degree simply make an assertion about what is described as being pure, and it does not compare it to other things. Pure is clearly not used in a comparative degree concerning the 100% absolutely and completely pure and perfect words of the LORD. The word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7). Pure words of the LORD have the very same absolute, complete purity as very pure words (Ps. 119:140). The use of “very” would emphasize the fact of the absolute purity, but it could not increase the purity of words that are already 100% wholly and absolutely pure.
Since the 1560 Geneva Bible was good enough for God for at least 50 years, do you say that it is [present tense] still good enough for God and that it is good enough for you?
Here are some thought-provoking questions that attempt to apply KJV-only claims, KJV-only questions, and KJV-only reasoning consistently and justly.
If KJV-only advocates really believe that the Geneva Bible was the inspired or pure Word of God in English in 1560 and believe their own claims concerning the word of God, should they have been unwilling to have one word or even one syllable of it changed?
Do Ruckman and other KJV-only advocates take the English translation “given by inspiration” at 2 Timothy 3:16 in the 1560 Geneva Bible “to be the truth” and to mean that the Geneva Bible was given by inspiration of God [for example, see Ruckman‘s Biblical Scholarship, p. 355]?
Do KJV-only advocates maintain that the f1560 Geneva Bible, which was the translation received, accepted, believed, and used by English-speaking believers before 1611, was “given by inspiration” or “divinely inspired” by definition of Scripture or the word of God?
Should English-speaking believers in 1560 have accepted the Geneva Bible as their providentially-appointed final authority according to a consistent, just application of KJV-only reasoning? Should believers have assumed that God so protected His word in the Geneva Bible so that nothing could have been lost in the translating and so that there could be no errors in it to mislead its readers?
Were English-speaking believers in 1560 and for the next fifty years supposed to accept and believe every word of their received English Bible that God had provided them as pure, inspired, and perfect?
Were those saved under witnessing, teaching, or preaching from the Geneva Bible born of corruptible seed or incorruptible seed?
Since the Geneva Bible was sufficient for English-speaking believers for at least fifty years and perhaps one hundred years, did it supposedly become insufficient in 1611 or in 1660?
Which English Bible did Jesus or the Holy Spirit use from 1560 until 1610?
Since the Lord Jesus Christ used the Geneva Bible for at least fifty years, would He change and use a different one according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning?
If Jesus had brought a KJV to church with Him in 1611, would it undermine the historical integrity of His words in English the previous fifty years?
Had our English Scriptures been wrong for over 50 years until a new group of translators finally got them right in 1611?
If the 1560 Geneva Bible did not contain all the words of the LORD without error, is it being suggested that God made an error in permitting it to be made, published, and received in the first place?
If English-speaking believers did not have in the 1560 Geneva Bible a translation containing all of God’s words and only God’s words, would KJV-only reasoning suggest that God gave them a defective foundation and authority?
Would KJV-only reasoning suggest that God preserved error instead of truth in the 1560 Geneva Bible?
Do KJV-only advocates imply that God revoked inspiration at some point in time before 1611 [such as in 1560] and only reinstated it in 1611?
Did the making of a new English translation in 1611 call into question the accuracy of the pre-1611 English Bible?
When readers of the 1611 KJV saw that some words and phrases found in the Geneva Bible were missing in the KJV, when they saw that the KJV added words, phrases, clauses, or a verse not found in the Geneva Bible, and when they saw the hundreds and thousands of differences between the two, were they supposed to assume that the doctrines of Bible inspiration, preservation, and inerrancy were destroyed?
Fanastasic, In Fact Noah even autographed the KJV that he gave me!!!
and I like the part where you said "whatever the KJV we have" I dont let facts get in the way of truth, either!
many Baptists assume the Bible refers to many different ones, such as Kjv/Nkjv/Nas/Esv etc!
If we ever dug up the originals, would have to submit them to be perfected by the Kjv!
God never used it though, as the scriptures jesus used were in Hebrew and Aramaic!
You will look until Second Coming, as only the Originals themselves were perfect!
You DO know that God does not speak KJV.Amen Deacon!
Please explain this to me. How is "anything but the KJV" speaking in tongues? I'm a linguist. I'll understand if you can explain it well enough.
Is the Lifeline Japanese NT the Word of God?
Uh what is this related to Ray?
If you mean God's actual knowledge:I have a feeling that God knows and can speak or use any language in existence at anytime on the earth.
I g
I grew up KJVO and adults prayed to God using Thee Thou Hast, etc as if God spoke KJV and only understood KJV.
- Status