Featured KJVO and the Strongs Concordance

Which was NEVER resulting in either an inspired nor perfect translation!

 

Would prefer to use Lexicons and word study dictionaries to Strongs

 

Because you choose to believe your own personal opinion that "only the KJV qualifies as scripture" does not make it true. The Scriptures do not teach your opinion. You are in effect adding to the Scriptures your opinions, which is contrary to sola scriptura.

The KJV is just as much commentary as the NKJV supposedly is. The Church of England makers of the KJV added thousands of words for which they had no original-language words of Scripture. The KJV has many non-literal dynamic equivalent-type renderings.

 

You fail to prove that any supposed "election process" was actually used in the making of the KJV. You may have been misinformed by unreliable KJV-only sources.

The actual rules for the making of the KJV would contradict your opinions since the makers of KJV had to use certain renderings such as "church" and "baptize" without any ability to elect what was the most accurate renderings of the Greek words.

 

That didn't answer the question. Why is the KJV SPECIFICALLY the only perfect translation? How do we know it was the chosen one? And WHICH VERSION of the KJV? Your view is nonsense.

 

They translated His perfect word into English 1611 only to have several updates since 1611. Perfection just flew out the window.

 

And I'm sure he doesn't use a 1611 edition either.

 

Their sources were ancient, translating an ancient language...a recipe for success.

 

Interesting. I suggest you actually do some study on how the KJV actually came to be, clearly you don't actually know.

 

Do you think there is a pure word of God in existence today, or are we all grasping for straws?

 

Picking a lone translation is adding to the scriptures?

 

There were approx 50 translators involved over several years. They elected each word and verse.

That took along time.

Nothing like the quacks inventing Bibles today, prohibited by copyright law to even say what they think.

 

The KJV is ancient and involving the election process.

The ancient Greek was also ancient and required ancient men to translate it into English.

The evolution of the KJV still says the same thing from Elizabethan English.

 

Nope, it says the same thing.

Use an ancient dictionary if you get stuck on a word, not Strongs etc.

 

Sure I do.

My sources are great.

Yours are biased and trying to sell new age translations.

Follow the money.

 

1. Ancient? No, the KJV is not ancient.
2. They used a manuscript for the NT compiled by Erasmus in the 16th century. Again, not ancient. Erasmus himself said it was a flawed manuscript. So there's that.
3. No, it is

HAHAHAHA what a brainwashed answer. Study your history, you are wrong.

 

You provide no sound documented evidence for your claim concerning an "election" process. You ignore and dodge historical sound evidence that conflicts with your unproven claims.

 

Really? If your sources were really so great, you would not be getting incorrect, non-true claims from them.

You do not name and identify your claimed "great" sources so that others can also consult them. If you cannot identify those sources and recommend them to others, it would suggest that they are not so great.

 

Perfect: being entirely without fault or defect

KJV revisions since 1911:

1617
1629
1631
1638
1702
1717
1810
1823

Most today use the 1769 and it comes in both Oxford and Cambridge edition.

There were ~ 400 typos in the perfect word of God in 1611. That does not and never will fit the definition of perfect, no matter how hard to try to make it stick.