No one has addressed this so I'm bumping it. I am particularly interested in Winman's and Baptist4Life's response.
-
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 wanna bang my head
- Thread starter annsni
- Start date
- Status
No one has addressed this so I'm bumping it. I am particularly interested in Winman's and Baptist4Life's response.
Specifically Miles Smith.
Who is that.... can I find him on LinkedIn?
How bout any of these guys....
Hanserd Knollys, Daniel Finch,
William Kiffin, John Ball,
John Harris, Edmond White,
William Collins, William Pritchard,
Hercules Collins, Paul Fruin,
Robert Steed, Richard Ring,
Leonard Harrison, John Tompkins,
George Barret, Toby Willes,
Isaac Lamb, John Carter,
Richard Adams, James Webb,
Benjamin Keath, Richard Sutton,
Andrew Gifford, Robert Knight,
Thomas Vaux, Edward Price,
Thomas Winnel, William Phipps,
James Hitt, William Hankins,
Richard Tidmarsh, Samuel Ewer,
William Facey, Edward Man,
Samuel Buttel, Charles Archer,
Christopher Price.
Last edited by a moderator:
How do you know that the NIV and other modern versions are "missing" verses? What if it is really true that the KJV has added words? Unintntionally so --but added nontheless.
Originally Posted by Rippon
Specifically Miles Smith.
Who is that....
Miles Smith is the KJV translator who wrote the preface to the 1611 edition of the KJV in the name of or for all the translators.
D. A. Waite acknowledged that the preface of the 1611 "had the approval" of all the KJV translators (Defending the KJB, p. 64). William Savage asserted that “the preface was written and affixed by the king’s command” (Dictionary, p. 39). Laurence Vance indicated that Smith wrote the preface “in the name of all the translators” (King James, His Bible, p. 52).
Originally Posted by InTheLight
Would you say that one manuscript is always right and the other one always wrong, or could it be that one is correct in certain spots and the other one is correct in other areas?
Since the editors of editions of the Greek New Testament have not always followed any one Greek manuscript, it should be obvious that there is no one manuscript that is considered always right.
On what one singular and complete Greek manuscript of the New Testament that had no copying errors or nothing missing or added can KJV-only advocates claim that the entire text of the Textus Receptus [or the entire text of the KJV's NT] was based?
Last edited by a moderator:
I have the feeling that more discoveries will be made of ancient Bible texts --fragments though they may be. This might be the decade!
When? In 1987?
I bet you that she hasn't traded her NIV for a KJV over it.
You are the primary (perhaps only) poster who keeps harping on this idea of yours. You wouldn't be trying to plant seeds of doubt --would you?
You as a KJVO/KJVP person have been under the ministry of your Sunday School teacher who uses the NIV --for years. Haven't you learned anything yet? If you think that he is not teaching from the Word of God --why stay under his ministry? If he,by using the NIV, is causing doubt and confusion --why do you stick around?
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL - Thanks Amy. I love the KJV. I didn't grow up with it now thinking back on my history but it's still a wonderful version and if someone chooses to use the KJV, I so "wonderful!!" The issue is when people begin to believe falsehoods that are SO easy to disprove when you do about 3 minutes of research. "The people of Alexandria removed parts of the Bible that they disagreed with." That's what was said to my daughter. "Modern Bibles completely removed verses and I don't want my Bible to be missing verses." How quickly is that disproved when you pull out an NIV and actually read it - and see the "missing verses" in black and white.
It's just sad when people are so gullible. That's what makes me want to bang my head.
It's even worse when they are Ph.D's.
Alleged :laugh:
Well...
Are you, or any other KJVO posting here, skilled in the original languages and textual criticism to be able to really explain just why the Critical greek text is much worse than the TR text?
remember, the word of God were the original OT/NT books, and per jesus, the Greek/hebrew texts that we have today have been preserved to us for transaltions in the greek?Hebrew texts, regardless if they are the TR/MT/CT !
Well, from its "humble" beginnings with the boox by Wilkinson, Ray, and Fuller, the KJVO myth has been made into a fair-size industry, with its own genre of literature. Fact is, however, the doctrine itself, as well as most of its salient points, is FALSE.
The fact of NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT effectively kills KJVO, although its advocates won't admit it. lacking any REAL evidence to support it, they make up excuses such as was told to your daughter, as well as toss out red herrings, hoping to distract people from this 'no evidence' fact, such as their "manuscript evidence" thingie. Truth is, the HAND OF GOD is much more-evident in the preservation of the much-maligned Sinaiticus and Vaticanus than it is in the preservation of most other Scriptural mss.
One of the most-ignorant of KJVO ploys is to accuse us Freedom Readers who reject the KJVO myth of being "Bible haters, part of an anti-KJV cult, despisers of God's word", etc. I hope everyone undecided about the KJVO issue comes across some of those accusations, which generally reveals that in these instances, KJVOa are on less-than-intimate terms with the TRUTH.
I believe the simplest thing to do with your daughter and her friends is to ask them to show you SOMETHING FROM GOD that says they should be KJVO. Then, most likely, they'll be open to being presented with the TRUE LIES of the KJVO myth.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Finally this thread is on page 10!
- Status