KJV Versions.

[rlvaughn]

Correlation does not always equal causation.
Yet when there is direct first-hand evidence from one of the KJV translators that acknowledged that the 1582 Rheims was consulted and used, it makes it very likely and even fairly certain that the 1582 Rheims is the source followed by the KJV translators in many of those cases of correlation.

Possible yes, certain, no. Should the evidence that Bois did not mention it be given any weight, when he mentioned something else in those places?

 

[rlvaughn]

Now that I know what it is, it'll become the "LSV" in my vocabulary.

So you initially thought or hoped it might be the Bible?

Not to mention in the KJV the difference between the "Lord's Prayer" in Matthew & Mark.

I think that is Luke (Luke 11:2-4) rather than Mark. Not aware of it being in Mark.

 

[robycop3]

So you initially thought or hoped it might be the Bible?
Newp-jUST DIDN'T PAY MUCH ATTENTION.
I think that is Luke (Luke 11:2-4) rather than Mark. Not aware of it being in Mark.

My bad-I goofed. It's in Luke. But the differences are there.

 

[robycop3]

My bad-I goofed. It's in Luke. But the differences are there.

I'm human-I goof, same as anyone else. But some make more than others.

 

[rlvaughn]

My bad-I goofed. It's in Luke. But the differences are there.

Are you bothered by the differences?

 

[robycop3]

Are you bothered by the differences?

Not really. They're 2 accounts of the same event by 2 different men.

While a cop, I was asked once, "If you received 4 accounts of the same incident from a rocket scientist, a news reporter, a schoolteacher, & a homeless person, which one would I believe?" I replied, "All of them, but I'd give the most weight to the one that best matched the evidence I'd discovered myself."

 

[Baptist4life]

"If you received 4 accounts of the same incident from a rocket scientist, a news reporter, a schoolteacher, & a homeless person, which one would I believe?" I replied, "All of them, but I'd give the most weight to the one that best matched the evidence I'd discovered myself."

That explains a lot about you! You don't really care about what may be the truth, you just agree with those that agree with you, and ignore what others may think!

 

[robycop3]

That explains a lot about you! You don't really care about what may be the truth, you just agree with those that agree with you, and ignore what others may think!

I see you've never been a cop, where a wrong decision (not about shoot-don't shoot) could ruin an innocent person's reputation, home life, etc. for the resta one's life.

 

[Baptist4life]

I see you've never been a cop, where a wrong decision (not about shoot-don't shoot) could ruin an innocent person's reputation, home life, etc. for the resta one's life.

That has NOTHING to do with what you posted......

robycop3 said: ↑
"If you received 4 accounts of the same incident from a rocket scientist, a news reporter, a schoolteacher, & a homeless person, which one would I believe?" I replied, "All of them, but I'd give the most weight to the one that best matched the evidence I'd discovered myself."

And, truthfully, I shudder to think that you were ever a cop!

 

[rlvaughn]

Not really. They're 2 accounts of the same event by 2 different men.

Opinions on this likely vary, but I do not think this is the same time or same event. Even if it were, I am not bothered by the differences. Matthew's record is part of the sermon on the mount, while Luke's record is in answer to the disciples' entreaty, "Lord, teach us to pray."

While a cop, I was asked once, "If you received 4 accounts of the same incident from a rocket scientist, a news reporter, a schoolteacher, & a homeless person, which one would I believe?" I replied, "All of them, but I'd give the most weight to the one that best matched the evidence I'd discovered myself."

I think all of us understand that there are different perspectives of the same event -- such as what the guy on the left saw and the guy on the right saw. However, I think that explanation falls a bit short when we are talking about scripture given by God.

 

[Stratton7]

That could be considered bible idolitry. It is certainly error. Every translation has mistakes. No one is a perfect translator. There are many good ones, but no perfect translators. The KJV may be the best translation in use. It may be more correct than most other bibles most of the time. But it is not always correct. It is not the KJV that is a problem. It is the "Onlyism" that is the error.

I think the overall process that was used by these translators were guided by God to keep His inspired Words perfectly preserved. Not that each translator as an individual are perfect or inspired themselves.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” 2 Tim 3:16

 

[Stratton7]

You may believe your statement, but that does not make your statement true nor scriptural. The Scriptures do not state nor teach your unproven belief concerning the KJV.

Why do you seek to demand that others say or believe your assertion that you have not proven to be true?

You can deceive yourself by believing claims or assertions that are not true and that are not scriptural.

There are actual verifiable facts that would conflict with your belief. It is a fact that the KJV does not provide an English rendering for every original-language word of Scripture in its underlying text, which would mean that the KJV could not preserve every word. The Church of England makers of the KJV acknowledged that fact in some of their marginal notes in the 1611 edition. The Bible doctrine of preservation concerns the specific words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles, and not the English renderings in the KJV.
It is also a fact that typical post-1900 editions of the KJV [excluding the 1611 reprint editions and the 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener] add over 150 whole words that were not in the 1611 edition of the KJV, and that they omit some words that were found in the 1611 edition. It is a fact that there are proven errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV so that the 1611 edition could not have perfectly preserved God's words.

I haven’t demanded that anyone believe a, b or c. You are misunderstanding if you think that. However, I’ve shared some things I believe and have answered those responses that were directed to me (without demand).
If you don’t find what I’ve shared to be any kind of reason as to why I think the KJB is inerrant and modern versions are not, then so be it. Who knows to what lengths of proofs would be satisfactory to you or anyone else.

 

[Conan]

I think the overall process that was used by these translators were guided by God to keep His inspired Words perfectly preserved. Not that each translator as an individual are perfect or inspired themselves.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” 2 Tim 3:16

Define "overall process". What about when the overal process shows other earlier bibles have a better reading than the KJV? Have you ever compared the earlier versions that make up the KJV?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

SixHour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 3:30 AM Pacific./ 630 am EDT

 

[robycop3]

That has NOTHING to do with what you posted......

And, truthfully, I shudder to think that you were ever a cop!

Cops are trained to find & discern evidence; most non-cops are not.
And I'd shudder to know that you were ever a "Christian" teacher.

 

[robycop3]

Opinions on this likely vary, but I do not think this is the same time or same event. Even if it were, I am not bothered by the differences. Matthew's record is part of the sermon on the mount, while Luke's record is in answer to the disciples' entreaty, "Lord, teach us to pray." I think all of us understand that there are different perspectives of the same event -- such as what the guy on the left saw and the guy on the right saw. However, I think that explanation falls a bit short when we are talking about scripture given by God.

All four of the "Gospels" differ in their accounts of the same events. Their writers were people, same as us.

 

[robycop3]

I think the overall process that was used by these translators were guided by God to keep His inspired Words perfectly preserved. Not that each translator as an individual are perfect or inspired themselves.

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” 2 Tim 3:16

Same can be said by other translators. The AV men were no more special than others were/are. They had the backing of the govt. of Britain plus that of the state church, thus ensuring the distribution of their finished product, which was printed by the royal printer.

 

[robycop3]

I haven’t demanded that anyone believe a, b or c. You are misunderstanding if you think that. However, I’ve shared some things I believe and have answered those responses that were directed to me (without demand).
If you don’t find what I’ve shared to be any kind of reason as to why I think the KJB is inerrant and modern versions are not, then so be it. Who knows to what lengths of proofs would be satisfactory to you or anyone else.

You've been shown that the KJV (NOT "KJB") is NOT inerrant, & you haven't been able to disprove any of those facts. The thralldom to the KJVO myth evidently prevents you from believing the truth. I hope the HOLY SPIRIT shows you differently, as, apparently, mere men can't get thru your KJVO firewall.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 3:30 AM Pacific./ 630 am EDT

This thread is closed.