-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is God, God?
- Thread starter stilllearning
- Start date
Are you assuming that I am :
1. Incompetent?
2. Lying?
3. Both?
That would seem to be what you improperly assumed about my accurate information about the text of an actual edition of the KJV printed at Oxford in 1769, but it is not what I assumed about you.
Considering the possibility that you may be uninformed or misinformed about the text of the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV since many books make incorrect claims about it is not the same thing as what you suggest.
I know that there is a web site that has the text of a KJV edition that is presented as being the 1769 Oxford when it is actually not a 1769. The person incorrectly assumed that the KJV edition he has at that web site is the 1769 Oxford when it is not. Those that check his KJV edition may incorrectly assume that they are checking a 1769 when they are not. Many have been incorrectly misinformed into thinking that they have or use a 1769 KJV when they do not.
I have checked an actual printed 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV that is at the Library of Congress in Washington, D. C. I also have downloaded the scanned text of a 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV from the Eighteenteen Century Collection database so that I have its text to examine firsthand. I just double-checked that text to make sure that I had the reference of the verse in Revelation typed correctly, and it was and that verse does have several missing words in the 1769 Oxford.
That would seem to be what you improperly assumed about my accurate information about the text of an actual edition of the KJV printed at Oxford in 1769, but it is not what I assumed about you.
Considering the possibility that you may be uninformed or misinformed about the text of the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV since many books make incorrect claims about it is not the same thing as what you suggest.
I know that there is a web site that has the text of a KJV edition that is presented as being the 1769 Oxford when it is actually not a 1769. The person incorrectly assumed that the KJV edition he has at that web site is the 1769 Oxford when it is not. Those that check his KJV edition may incorrectly assume that they are checking a 1769 when they are not. Many have been incorrectly misinformed into thinking that they have or use a 1769 KJV when they do not.
I have checked an actual printed 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV that is at the Library of Congress in Washington, D. C. I also have downloaded the scanned text of a 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV from the Eighteenteen Century Collection database so that I have its text to examine firsthand. I just double-checked that text to make sure that I had the reference of the verse in Revelation typed correctly, and it was and that verse does have several missing words in the 1769 Oxford.
You asked me a question, which was predicated on an assumption of my inability to comprehend your previous question.
I have no use for your superiority complex.
God resists the proud.
I have no use for your superiority complex.
God resists the proud.
Those who advocate a man-made KJV-only theory display arrogance and pride.
My checking and examining the actual facts instead of the too common mere speculation and assumption that is too often evident in KJV-only claims does not indicate any imagined "superiority complex."
Because other believers do not blindly accept the arrogant opinions and unproven claims of a KJV-only view, you attempt to smear rather than deal with or discuss the facts.
Those who advocate a man-made KJV-only theory display arrogance and pride.
My checking and examining the actual facts instead of the too common mere speculation and assumption that is too often evident in KJV-only claims does not indicate any imagined "superiority complex."
Because other believers do not blindly accept the arrogant opinions and unproven claims of a KJV-only view, you attempt to smear rather than deal with or discuss the facts.
You're right.
But you just said you were KJV OnlyBecause any Christian that “truly believes” that God is “The Almighty, One True Living God”, should accept the premise that GOD, would not leave His people “perpetually” dependant upon some group of scholars to know what HIS WORD actually says.
The KJV was translated by a very good group of scholars. So if you read the KJV and cannot read Hebrew,Greek, then you are dependent on a group of scholars to translate the Bible into a language you can read. So if you are going to believe that God would give us his word in a way that we are not dependent on a group of scholars, then you need to use something other than the KJV.than you should be Kjonly!
The fact that we have over 5800 NT manuscripts, plus many more in other languages plus all the OT manuscripts, we have no reason at all to have any question on what God's word says.If indeed God is truly God, than when He chose to Give us His Word, He would not leave any “question”, as to what HIS WORD truly says!
He would Supernaturally and providentially keep His Word persevered for us!
We have 643 manuscripts of Homer's Illiad. There is a 500 year gap from when it was written and our oldest manuscript. Our manuscripts are about 95% accurate. We know what Homer said in the Illiad.
The NT has over 5800 manuscripts. There is less than a 100 year gap between when the last book was written and our oldest copy. We know what the Bible says. We have an enormous about of evidence on what the Bible says.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with your post jbh28 --but it's Homer.
You might want to reword your next to last paragraph though --it's unclear what you are referencing at times.
Thanks, fixed it.
My 2nd paragraph point is that the KJV was produced by a group of scholars. He's advocating only using the KJV. He also says that we should not be dependent on a group of scholars. If we didn't have the group of scholars, we wouldn't have the KJV. Thus we are dependent on a group of scholars to translate the Bible in a language we can read.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry for the interruptions, but I really couldn't make any sense out of the above. That's why I so rudely intruded.We have 643 manuscripts of Homer's Illiad. There is a 500 year gap from when it was written and our oldest manuscript.[of the same] Our manuscripts [did you switch to the subject of biblical manuscripts?]are about 95% accurate.[if you are talking about biblical manuscripts --would you please explain what you mean?] We know what Homer said in the Illiad. [It looks like you are jumping around here. Stick to one item at a time.]
I'm sorry for the interruptions, but I really couldn't make any sense out of the above. That's why I so rudely intruded.
He is just talking about Homer's Iliad. The manuscripts refer to the Iliad manuscripts.
Thanks, fixed it.
My 2nd paragraph point is that the KJV was produced by a group of scholars. He's advocating only using the KJV. He also says that we should not be dependent on a group of scholars. If we didn't have the group of scholars, we wouldn't have the KJV. Thus we are dependent on a group of scholars to translate the Bible in a language we can read.
And those advocating KJVO position also rebuke those of us also seeing MV as acceptable to use, but they also must assume the originals matched he KJV closer then the MV!
How to prove that assumption?
I'm sorry for the interruptions, but I really couldn't make any sense out of the above. That's why I so rudely intruded.
I was referring to Homer's Illiad until I went to a different line and said NT manuscripts.
We have 643 manuscripts of Homer's Illiad. There is a 500 year gap from when it was written and our oldest manuscript.[of the same] Yes Our manuscripts [did you switch to the subject of biblical manuscripts?]No, what gave you the idea that I did? are about 95% accurate.[if you are talking about biblical manuscripts --would you please explain what you mean?]No, still on the Homer's Illiad. Why would you think I switched to anything else? We know what Homer said in the Illiad. [It looks like you are jumping around here. Stick to one item at a time.]No, I didn't change subjects. Talked about Homer's Illiad the whole time here in this paragraph. I'm not sure why you thought I did changed to anything else.