KJBOism and its alleged WMD

You should get a better teacher. FHA Scrivener (among others) have documented many changes that have to do with teh addition and subtraction of words.

But even at that, how does a perfect book have any spelling or printing errors in it?? That is a contradiction in terms. If it has an error, then it is not perfect.

 

I am implying that there are no changes in the meaning of the verses.

 

As am I. You people are just grasping at straws like a drowning man gasps for air;give it up,the same old accusations hold no weight whatsoever.An honest man could see that.

 

MV-neverist writes:
>>You people are just grasping at straws like a
>>drowning man gasps for air;give it up,the same
>>old accusations hold no weight whatsoever

If this is the case, are you now willing to accept the Apocrypha as the Word of God, as it is in the AV?

 

Your implication flies in the face of the facts. Consider just a small sample:

The 1631 edition read "Thou shalt commit adultery" in Ex 20:14. That was clearly a change in meaning.

Gen 39:16 in the original 1611 read "until her lord came." In the modern KJV it reads "until his lord came." Now you cannot tell us with a straight face that "his" and "her" mean the same thing. That is a change in meaning.

Deut 26:1 in teh original 1611 omitted the name of God. It was added in the modern KJV.

Judges 11:2 in the original 1611 reads "wives sons." In the modern KJV it reads "wife's sons." Clearly for the man whose wife is being talked about, there is a clear difference in meaning.

Jer 49:1 in the 1611 read "God." In the modern KJV they omitted the name of God here, changing it to the correct "Gad." Anyone who thinks that "God" and "Gad" mean the same thing needs to have their head (and their theology) examined.

In 1 Cor 12:28, a spiritual gift was "helps in governments" in the original 1611. The modern KJV reads "helps, governments." Again, this is clearly a difference in meaning.

I could cite many more but this is sufficient to show that your implication is dead wrong. Many of these changes dealt with change in meaning. To imply that there was no change in meaning is simply false.

This article will be enlightening for you: Errors in the King James Version

 

I have just put the facts on the table for you. Be honest and look at them. And then be man enough to come in here and apologize for your misleading statements and your arrogance.

 

Tommyrot!! Hurry,hurry,your running out of straws!!!!!!

 

Tommyrot!! Hurry,hurry,your running out of straws!!!!!! </font>[/QUOTE]I have shown you the facts in black and white. For you to keep going on supporting a false position is willful ignorance. You have been shown the truth. You can get copies of a 1611 and compare it with your modern KJV and see that what I am saying is the truth and that what you are saying is not true.

How long will you continue to follow false teaching??

 

I fear that the KJV only controversy will never be brought to a conclusion, as it is an emotional rather than a logical discussion. This cultic movement ( I'm ashamed to say ) is alive and well inside my baptist denomination. I have nothing against the KJV, but I preach out of the NKJV, since it is written in the English that we speak today.( I dont beleive that reading the word of God should be burdensome.) I was witness to just how ugly and potentially dangerous this dispute can be. A good friend of mine preached at an assembly of our baptist churches a couple of weeks ago. He preached from the NKJV. Immediately after the service one of the preachers that is rabidly kjv only, got in his face, shaking a mag light at him, shouting at him that he was pushing satanic scriptures at us all. I was so ashamed to even be there.
With that said, have any of you had any luck getting through to these people.

 

Your right to point that out about the Apocrypha. If the KJV is indeed the only inspired english version of the bible, I would like to think that the Lord would have got it right the first time. To say that the KJV is the only one, yet not accept the Apocrypha? Are we to beleive that only part of the KJV is inspired? By the way, I'm not attacking the KJV. I think it is a wonderfull translation, just not the only translation.