King James Bible Inspired

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Scott J:
The problem isn't with what we say or believe. The problem is with your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "perfect".
A translation can be perfect (whole, complete, lacking nothing) in its essential character and message. However it can never.... never be perfect in its words.

Why? Because the words are different!

For instance, "Lord" is a perfect translation for "kurios". But "Lord" is not and can never be "kurios". They are two different words meaning the same thing.

The various faithful versions of the Bible in English are perfect not because they have identical wording but because they communicate the same message/doctrines.

Were I understand and agree that the meaning of scripture is perfect, that perfection however, I believe, lies only in the King James Bible.

 

[timothy 1769]

It was once stated on this board (a few months ago) that King James was specifically mentioned in the Old Testament.

Well if that verse hadn't been edited out of your modern versions, you would have known that!

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Were [sic] I understand and agree that the meaning of scripture is perfect, that perfection however, I believe, lies only in the King James Bible.

Wait a minute, are you sure about that?

Here is a quote from your post a few minutes ago:

The apocrypha is not scripture, if I'm not mistaken, it was placed in between the old and new testaments for history sake, not to be part of God's infallible word.

The Apocrypha is in the 1611 Authorised Version. Put differently, it is in the "King James Bible."

 

[Ed Edwards]

Homebound: "Looking, don't see "icus." What's your game?"

Congrads Brother Pastor Larry
on your decisive victory over Brother Homebound.
He got blindsided and probably still hasn't seen
what hit him
Ain't it a tad like rolling drunks though

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
Were [sic] I understand and agree that the meaning of scripture is perfect, that perfection however, I believe, lies only in the King James Bible.

Wait a minute, are you sure about that?

Here is a quote from your post a few minutes ago:

The apocrypha is not scripture, if I'm not mistaken, it was placed in between the old and new testaments for history sake, not to be part of God's infallible word.

The Apocrypha is in the 1611 Authorised Version. Put differently, it is in the "King James Bible." </font>[/QUOTE]It's there for historical reasons only, not inspired scripture. I do thank the translators for putting it in the 1611.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
It's there for historical reasons only, not inspired scripture. I do thank the translators for putting it in the 1611.

That is not the implication of your previous post....

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Homebound: "Looking, don't see "icus." What's your game?"

Congrads Brother Pastor Larry
on your decisive victory over Brother Homebound.
He got blindsided and probably still hasn't seen
what hit him
Ain't it a tad like rolling drunks though

Mr Ed, what a character. You are the comic relieve.

I got the meaning the second time. The modernist are really going far out if they are using the Apocrypha. I guess they have too since it was in the Alexandrian MSS, it's part of their scripture.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
It's there for historical reasons only, not inspired scripture. I do thank the translators for putting it in the 1611.

Amen, Brother HomeBound -- Preach it!

I'm having fun trying to figure out how
to use the table "To finde Eafter for euer"
chart. I'm trying to figure out when
Easter is in 2003. I gues i don't know
the GOLDEN NUMBER and SUNDAY LETTER for 2003
Probably i need a Anglican priest to help me

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
I'm having fun trying to figure out how
to use the table "To finde Eafter for euer"
chart. I'm trying to figure out when
Easter is in 2003. I gues i don't know
the GOLDEN NUMBER and SUNDAY LETTER for 2003
Probably i need a Anglican priest to help me

I've tried three times to figure that thing out. What a puzzle. To get the "golden number", there's another paragraph on one of the other pages, but it's even more confusing. Something about the Zodiac, if I remember correctly.

 

[Ed Edwards]

HomeBound: "Mr Ed, what a character. You are the comic relieve.

I got the meaning the second time. The modernist are really going far out if they are using the Apocrypha."

Maybe you missed the meaning the second
time also? The modernists are NOT "using
the Apocrypha" for doctrine creation, just
perhaps for historical reference.

The argumentative mondernists are bringing
forth the division among KJBOs:
some saying the KJV1611 is the only
KJB and some saying the KJV1611 is
Satanically contanimated
by the Apocrypha and those pesky
sidenotes. But then, who ever expects
that the KJBOs would be homogeneous* anyway?

homogeneous = all alike throughout
(like in homogeneous milk all the
cream and milk are thoroughly mixed
so each part of the milk is exactly
alike)

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
The modernist [sic] are really going far out if they are using the Apocrypha. I guess they have too [sic] since it was in the Alexandrian MSS, it's part of their scripture.

What?
Most "modernists" DO NOT use the Apocrypha.

 

[neal4christ]

Yes, I use the same King James as you do, 1769. The apocrypha is not scripture, if I'm not mistaken, it was placed in between the old and new testaments for history sake,

I believe you are correct, Homebound.

In Christ,
Neal

 

[HankD]

And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following:

Why then were they removed by the Anglican Church in 1769 against the wishes of Saint Jerome?

I think the course of this thread proves the proposition of the KJVO double-standard and their orwellian double-speak.

Things which are different are not the same (unless it is the differing KJVs then they are the same with or without the Roman Apocrypha or the introduction of the Roman holiday "Easter-Ishtar" or the hundreds of word differences in the various KJV editions, those are "the same").

HankD

 

[TheOliveBranch]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
We actually agree on something?

I must have something wrong in my thinking. This cannot be happening.