KJVO and the Strongs Concordance

[Reformed1689]

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

You know the KJV is under copyright as well right?

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

He, like so many KJVO cultists, is brainwashed. The KJV for them is an idol.

 

[Logos1560]

Picking a lone translation is adding to the scriptures?

Making non-scriptural exclusive only claims for that lone translation and suggesting that the Scriptures support that opinion would be adding to the Scriptures opinions and traditions of men. You attempt to make your non-scriptural KJV-only opinions a matter of Bible doctrine, and thus you would be adding to the Scriptures opinions of men.

 

[Truther]

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.

There are 2 differing sources.

Pro KJVO and anti KJVO.

The pro KJVO sources make perfect sense to me and the anti KJVO sources make sense to you.

The pro KJVO insists that there is a pure word of God today.

The anti KJVO teaches there is no pure word of God and redefinitions are still on the table.

I pick the pro.

 

[Truther]

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.

Google it.

 

[Truther]

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.

I just Google pro KJVO websites that defend the KJV.

There are tons of them.

I commend the Baptists for the KJVO stance too.

 

[Truther]

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.

I can read the original, which says the same thing as my modern KJV.

The modern versions however, omit and change the words entirely.

Have all the modern stuff you want.

 

[Logos1560]

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

You fail to prove your claim to be factually true. You rely upon undefined smears and false allegations as you disobey the Scriptures and bear false witness. Perhaps you have been misinformed by bogus KJV-only claims concerning copyright law.

Were the KJV translators "quacks" since they were prohibited by rules made by Archbishop Bancroft and King James to translate what they thought was the most accurate rendering since they had to keep certain words in order to favor Church of England church government views? The Church of England makers of the KJV were already biased to favor Church of England views, but the rules and the appointing of Archbishop Bancroft to oversee and control the translating made sure that episcopal bias would be in the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

I just Google pro KJVO websites that defend the KJV.

There are tons of them.

Are you admitting that you blindly trust one-sided, biased, unreliable KJV-only websites without checking out their claims to make sure whether or not they are true?
I have checked out many KJV-only claims and found that they were not actually true.

 

[Truther]

You know the KJV is under copyright as well right?

You know the KJV is under copyright as well right?

I Britain, but not here.

Your modern versions are forced to be 50,000 words different from each other by law.

Times that by about 100.

There is your "pure" word of God.

No wait, you are still redefining your own stuff, that's right.(Strongs).

 

[Truther]

Making non-scriptural exclusive only claims for that lone translation and suggesting that the Scriptures support that opinion would be adding to the Scriptures opinions and traditions of men. You attempt to make your non-scriptural KJV-only opinions a matter of Bible doctrine, and thus you would be adding to the Scriptures opinions of men.

No, I protect a particular version as you debunk them all.

Go win a soul with your idea.

 

[Truther]

You fail to prove your claim to be factually true. You rely upon undefined smears and false allegations as you disobey the Scriptures and bear false witness. Perhaps you have been misinformed by bogus KJV-only claims concerning copyright law.

Were the KJV translators "quacks" since they were prohibited by rules made by Archbishop Bancroft and King James to translate what they thought was the most accurate rendering since they had to keep certain words in order to favor Church of England church government views? The Church of England makers of the KJV were already biased to favor Church of England views, but the rules and the appointing of Archbishop Bancroft to oversee and control the translating made sure that episcopal bias would be in the KJV.

Nobody retranslated the translators works in 1611.

 

[Truther]

Are you admitting that you blindly trust one-sided, biased, unreliable KJV-only websites without checking out their claims to make sure whether or not they are true?
I have checked out many KJV-only claims and found that they were not actually true.

Yes.

I defend the holy Bible.

You don't.

You debunk it.

That's why you guys exist.

Go win a soul.

 

[Logos1560]

Your modern versions are forced to be 50,000 words different from each other by law.

Times that by about 100.

That is an unproven allegation or claim. You have not checked out this claim and found it to be true. You have been misled.

There are English Bible translations that would prove that claim to be false. The 1994 21st Century King James Version and 1998 Third Millennium Bible both have copyrights, and they do not have 50,000 words different from each other. It is not proven that the 1982 NKJV and the 1990 Modern KJV by Jay Green (both with copyrights) supposedly have 50,000 words different from each other. I have compared many places in the NKJV and MKJV, and there is no indication that they have anywhere close to 50,000 words different from each other.

Authors, who have studied and explained copyright law, do not agree with typical KJV-only claims about copyrights. A derivative work could only be properly made with the permission of the underlying source’s copyright owner when that source is still copyrighted. The copyright of that derivative work would only apply to the new material created or added by its author. Richard Stim quoted the statue as stating: “The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work” (Patent, Copyright & Trademark, p. 324). Richard Stim maintained: “Under copyright law, factual works receive less protection than works of fiction because the underlying facts are legally considered to be in the public domain” (p. 239). Lloyd Jassin and Steven Schechter wrote: “Because copyright does not protect ideas and facts, copying alone is not enough to prove copyright infringement” (Copyright Permission, p. 20). Jassin and Schechter added: “Where fact and expression merge, such as in the portrayal of factual truths, copyright protection is said to be extremely ’thin’” (Ibid.). Jassin and Schechter maintained: “Extracting pure facts from a copyrighted work is not copyright infringement” (p. 55). Jassin and Schechter asserted: “Unfortunately, no simple rule exists for distinguishing uncopyrightable facts from their copyrightable expression” (Ibid.).

 

[Truther]

That is an unproven allegation or claim. You have not checked out this claim and found it to be true. You have been misled.

There are English Bible translations that would prove that claim to be false. The 1994 21st Century King James Version and 1998 Third Millennium Bible both have copyrights, and they do not have 50,000 words different from each other. It is not proven that the 1982 NKJV and the 1990 Modern KJV by Jay Green (both with copyrights) supposedly have 50,000 words different from each other. I have compared many places in the NKJV and MKJV, and there is no indication that they have anywhere close to 50,000 words different from each other.

Authors, who have studied and explained copyright law, do not agree with typical KJV-only claims about copyrights. A derivative work could only be properly made with the permission of the underlying source’s copyright owner when that source is still copyrighted. The copyright of that derivative work would only apply to the new material created or added by its author. Richard Stim quoted the statue as stating: “The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work” (Patent, Copyright & Trademark, p. 324). Richard Stim maintained: “Under copyright law, factual works receive less protection than works of fiction because the underlying facts are legally considered to be in the public domain” (p. 239). Lloyd Jassin and Steven Schechter wrote: “Because copyright does not protect ideas and facts, copying alone is not enough to prove copyright infringement” (Copyright Permission, p. 20). Jassin and Schechter added: “Where fact and expression merge, such as in the portrayal of factual truths, copyright protection is said to be extremely ’thin’” (Ibid.). Jassin and Schechter maintained: “Extracting pure facts from a copyrighted work is not copyright infringement” (p. 55). Jassin and Schechter asserted: “Unfortunately, no simple rule exists for distinguishing uncopyrightable facts from their copyrightable expression” (Ibid.).

21st century KJV...LOL


21st Century King James Version EXPOSED!

 

[Logos1560]

I defend the holy Bible.

You don't..

Your assertions are not true. You are not defending the Holy Bible given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles while I defend the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations. I am in effect agreeing with the view of Bible translations stated by the KJV translators themselves.

You are contradicting scriptural truth as you in effect attempt to bind the word of God to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611. You contradict the wisdom from God above that is without partiality as your KJV-only opinions would show partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England priests in 1611.

 

[Salty]

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

1) if you actually studied as you claim you do - you would find that the King James Bible DOES carry a copyright!

2) Do you read out of the 1611 version or the 1769 version

3) you stated in post # 53 "The evolution of the KJV still says the same thing from Elizabethan English."
You are totally wrong!

A) Explanation: The KJV and Archaic Words (Middle English)
B) Examples: https://christiananswers.net/dictionary/kjvwords.html

4) You keep talking about your sources - we would love to see them - until then - your
comments carry zero weight!

5) Interesting - you mention such serious subjects - yet you picture is of Curly --- Hmmmmm

6) I have more to say - but I have an important appointment to get to

 

[Logos1560]

I can read the original, which says the same thing as my modern KJV.
.

The original 1611 edition of the KJV does not have all the same words as one of the many varying post-1900 editions of the KJV. I have actually compared the 1611 edition and with a typical post-1900 edition, and I found over 2,000 differences. Over 150 whole words have been added that were not in the 1611 edition besides all the other changes.

You are uninformed and misinformed about KJV editions.

 

[Truther]

Your assertions are not true. You are not defending the Holy Bible given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles while I defend the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations. I am in effect agreeing with the view of Bible translations stated by the KJV translators themselves.

You are contradicting scriptural truth as you in effect attempt to bind the word of God to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611. You contradict the wisdom from God above that is without partiality as your KJV-only opinions would show partiality to one exclusive group of Church of England priests in 1611.

As an evangelist/teacher, I teach souls they can trust the words of their Bible.

You don't.

Modernists teach that it is error prone.

You can't win souls with that rhetoric.

Satan can, though.

 

[Truther]

1) if you actually studied as you claim you do - you would find that the King James Bible DOES carry a copyright!

2) Do you read out of the 1611 version or the 1769 version

3) you stated in post # 53 "The evolution of the KJV still says the same thing from Elizabethan English."
You are totally wrong!

A) Explanation: The KJV and Archaic Words (Middle English)
B) Examples: https://christiananswers.net/dictionary/kjvwords.html

4) You keep talking about your sources - we would love to see them - until then - your
comments carry zero weight!

5) Interesting - you mention such serious subjects - yet you picture is of Curly --- Hmmmmm

6) I have more to say - but I have an important appointment to get to

The KJV is only copyrighted in England. A teeny place.

It is free to copy and distribute anywhere else.

The modernists will hunt you down with their lawyers anywhere in the world if you get within 50,000 words of their translations.

If you want to create a new translation these days...be different.