You have failed to prove your claim to be true. You were already given factual examples that would prove your claim not to be true. You refuse to face and learn the truth as you cling to incorrect claims.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
KJVO and the Strongs Concordance
- Thread starter rockytopva
- Start date
- Status
You have failed to prove your claim to be true. You were already given factual examples that would prove your claim not to be true. You refuse to face and learn the truth as you cling to incorrect claims.
Truther
Member
They elected the best definitions and went over the ancient Greek.
It was great.
All 50 of them spent years making these critical decisions.
God is smart to set up the last days revival with His word restored in the world dominant language of English.
God uses the KJV(as a plumbline) for all translations today.
God's word is still found today where it was before 1611 since it endures forever.
God's word today was not invented or created in 1611. Your claims concerning the 1611 would contradict the truth that the word endures forever.
Truther
Member
Big difference.
Case in point....I can copy my own Truther KJV and sell it without a lawsuit, word for word in CA.
You try it with the NKJV.
Their lawyers will eat your lunch.
Truther
Member
Where?
Truther
Member
I dare you to copy and sell an NIV.
Evidently according to the actual facts, they did not elect the best definition or rendering in some cases since those renderings had to be changed, revised, or corrected to different renderings in later editions.
They went over 1500's printed editions of the Greek NT, not any ancient Greek manuscripts.
Truther
Member
I am a believer in the pure word of God.
I stopped searching for it in 1979.
I teach from it.
I am not asking James Strong where to find it, nor am I interested in redefining it and telling sinners that it still does not exist in their language.
Soul winners teach sinners to believe what they read in their Bibles as God's word to them.
They don't "critique" it.
Truther
Member
Did you watch them?
Incorrect. The copyright on the KJV did not and has not kept publishers from changing it. The English text of the 1611 edition had many changes made to it through the years. The king's printers changed it, Cambridge University Press changed it, Oxford University Press changed it, and other publishers have changed it.
Cambridge University Press in 2011 was printing six varying editions of the KJV. Those six editions were not every word the same. They had changes or differences in them.
Last edited:
Not really, consistently, and truly. You do not show that you are a believer in the pure word of God before 1611. The pure word of God existed before 1611, but you cannot identify where it was. Your claimed pure word of God did not endure before 1611. You try to claim that the 1611 edition of the KJV with its proven errors was "the pure word of God" when its errors are not pure.
Your non-scriptural KJV-only opinions would contradict the Scripture as you attempt to bind the word of God to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of critics in 1611.
The word of God had been translated into English many years before 1611, but you do not consider the pre-1611 word of God translated into English to be the pure word of God.
Last edited:
He rarely answers directly and clearly any questions. He responds to some posts, but mostly by repeating his own incorrect claims or with diversions. He will not deal with actual facts, and he will not correct his own incorrect statements.
Why would anyone not take God as the preserver of His word?
Why do some humans think they have the right to determine what is and isn't usable by God?
When the horribly deceitful adulterer, Peter Ruckman, started in the 1960's presenting the KJV was superior even to that from which it was translated, his arrogance obliged him to defend his view despite how much it was in error.
God's word is His to preserve and His to establish. Humankind have no right to make grandiose claims of self centered authority in the matter.
There are far more manuscript evidences available then in the 1960's and far more then 1611.
Isn't it strange that no matter the translation, that there is no great doctrinal difference?
I may not like how some versions render a passage, but I can still use that version to lead someone to Christ.
For it is not my words nor my speaking voice that matters, it is God's word, and He will not allow it to be void of results.
Why do some humans think they have the right to determine what is and isn't usable by God?
When the horribly deceitful adulterer, Peter Ruckman, started in the 1960's presenting the KJV was superior even to that from which it was translated, his arrogance obliged him to defend his view despite how much it was in error.
God's word is His to preserve and His to establish. Humankind have no right to make grandiose claims of self centered authority in the matter.
There are far more manuscript evidences available then in the 1960's and far more then 1611.
Isn't it strange that no matter the translation, that there is no great doctrinal difference?
I may not like how some versions render a passage, but I can still use that version to lead someone to Christ.
For it is not my words nor my speaking voice that matters, it is God's word, and He will not allow it to be void of results.
What was he speaking thru before the Kjv?
Actually more speak some form of Chinese today, so are you studying from the Chinese Kjv now then?
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
This is not true.
"Rights in the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible are vested in the Crown" "Rights in the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible are administered in the United Kingdom by the Crown's patentee, Cambridge University Press. Applications for permission for liturgical or non-commercial educational use up to a maximum of 500 verses (or less than a full book) not required. Other uses subject to written permission being obtained from the Permissions Department, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CB2 8RU (www.cambridge.org)"
And we have an agreement to honor UK copyright. Circular 38A International Copyright Relations of the United States
So no, you cannot do that legally.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
You still have not defined what "God's Pure Word" actually means. You also have not said why the 1611 actually fits that criteria and based on what biblical principle.
This topic should be off limits on this site, seeing it produces idiotic posts.
- Status