Is some Bible-correcting in effect accepted by believers?

[Yeshua1]

Oh, really? So snake handling and poison drinking are major doctrines? And whether or not foot-washing is a valid ordinance is as major as the deity of Christ? No way.

Well of course. I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the originals of the Bible.

I disagree. I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture, and I care about "each and every word of God," but I say there is such a thing as a major doctrine and a minor doctrine. I could give many illustrations (and gave one above), but I'll just give one: If you believe the doctrine of the Antichrist is as important as the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord, you are as wrong as you can possibly be.

Your statement here has no connection with anything I have said on this thread or anything I believe or teach.

The are indeed essentials and non essentials doctrines, as the resurrection of Christ way more important than having wine or grape juice for communion!
And he seems to forget that the Kjv team indeed used textual criticism, as their TR texts were 5-6 different ones from Erasmus, who used latin Vulgate at times, used Beza, and also not certain how they came to all of their renderings!
And again, which TR did they use, why use Vulgate, how much was prior Bibles such as Geneva one used, and whch kjv, 1611/1769/1842 or what?
And many of them see the 1894 Greek text as being THE TR used by them, and yet are there any Kjv versions made off that base though?

 

[Yeshua1]

I have a question, Dave...
What exactly is it that you hate about the AV?
Too hard to read?

I admit that it does have a learning curve.
But at this point, after over 15 years of intense study, I know or am familiar with, all of the "archaic" words and their usage.
All I have to do is make a minor shift in the way I think when I read it, and I have no trouble.

To me, it really is worth the effort.



With that stated, "KJVO's", for the most part, are not trying to make everyone go back to the AV...they are concerned that there is a predominant attitude out there among professing believers, that every word of God doesn't count or is not important.


Among most "KJVO's", the main focus is, "if not the AV, then what new standard"?

Answer:

1) There is none.
2) They're all the word of God, despite the glaring differences.
3) Nothing is affected by all the missing, added or changed words compared to what believers had just 200 years ago.
4) Don't worry about all the missing pieces... all the areas of God's word where the divinity of Christ and many other vital pieces are beginning to get whittled away by each small increment of "new translation" using a botched, and even narrower "Greek text" than what Erasmus used, are not anything to get alarmed about.

6 Manuscripts?
The CT is based on half of that.

So...to me, slapping someone with the label of "KJVO" as some sort of ridicule, really should be re-considered, don't you think?


Thanks for reading.

I have and use at times the kjv, as like how it bring out into English plural and singular use of Greek such you as plural or singular for example, but do not see modern versions as being any less accurate and profitable to use than the Kjv!