Truther
Member
I can read a 1611 alongside my KJV and get the same thing.
i suppose some folks aren't into ancient English these days.
-
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
i suppose some folks aren't into ancient English these days.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
First, I don't use Strong's so no. Second, what does Copyright have to do with anything in the first place? Nothing. Third, you are brainwashed and not an objective thinker.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
LOL then you either aren't reading an actual 1611, or just being dishonest.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
The idiocy of this post is astounding. I was talking about manuscripts and instead of dealing with that you start talking about pro KJVO and Anti KJVO as if that had ANYTHING to do with what I was talking about.
Further, you said you google KJVO sources, yeah, that's objective. Good grief, go do some REAL study.
At least you admit that you were wrong - but that was the easiest question!
but your "50,000 words of their translations - is not exactly correct either!
(there are about 780k words in the Bible)
Now how about the other questions.
You fail to prove your opinion to be factually true.
Someone did make changes to the translators' work. A revision committee of twelve made changes to the work of the around 50 translators. Miles Smith and Bishop Thomas Bilson acted as editors and made some changes to the work of the translators. According to documented historical evidence in the 1600's, Church of England prelates whether Bishop Thomas Bilson, who was not a translator, or Archbishop Richard Bancroft or both made some changes to the translators' work. Later editors in 1629 and in 1638 at Cambridge also retranslated or changed some of the translation decisions in the 1611. Later editors in 1743, 1762, 1769 and other years retranslated or changed some of the translation decisions in the 1611 edition.
You repeat or invent a bogus, false allegation. You fail to prove what you claim to be true. You have been misinformed or deceived as you blindly believe claims that are not true.
You do need to understand that we are NOT anti-KJV!
But why are you
Anti- Geneva Bible - which was the first authorized Bible in English, which was the authorized Bible of the Church of England.
Geneva Bible - Wikipedia
also - since you say that the KJV 1611 is the perfect word of God - then you do read the Apocrypha as well.
Last edited:
You will NOT be getting the same thing between the 1611 and the 1769 edition!
Yes, the "pure" word of God existing today is the Lord Jesus!
Seems like extreme KJVO
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Exactly! I am not anti-KJV. I don't even mind people who are KJV Preferred.
I do have issues with the uneducated position of KJVO PURE WORD etc... The people who usually hold to that have no idea what they are talking about with regard to any historical accuracy.
Last edited by a moderator:
More than likely - some pastor told them that and they believe it without researching.
I like the definition…
KJVO- Is all I ever read
XKJVO - Extreme KJVO - Please don’t read from anywhere else
I have read my KJV over seven times and have wore out the covers. I find more and more reading from other versions these days and I find myself wondering if their versions are using the correct choice of words for the stated verses. But… I don’t say anything but it leaves me appreciating the KJV more and more.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
In which case I would send those people to
¶ And the brethren immediatly sent away Paul and Silas by night vnto Berea: who comming thither, went into the Synagogue of the Iewes.
11These were more noble then those in Thessalonica, in that they receiued the word with all readinesse of minde, and searched the Scriptures dayly, whether those things were so.
You could read a 1611 edition, but you may have your eyes closed to seeing the differences. The actual differences are there if your eyes are open to seeing them.
Truther
Member
Copyright translations forbid about 50,000 words from their competitors to avoid infringement.
If you and I want to make our own modern "word of God", we must change the words to satisfy the copyright law.
Wanna try?
Truther
Member
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
How do you know they are posting the actual 1611?
- Status