KJVo dare!

Click here while waiting for reply to opening post.

 

Really cute John!

To the topic:
Why bother? This appears to be bait for yet another 20+ pages of "Here we go round the mulberry bush".

Frankly, I am tired of the same ol' same ol'.

Aren't you?

Shouldn't we be more productively engaged in winning the lost?

In His service;
Jim

 

Phillip is just simply asking for proof of what so many KJVO's preach and teach. So we are waiting for some substance. If no substance, then it is simply a lie. So where's the truth?

 

Baitng, that's all yall know, sit and wait to ensnare, lying in wait is what God calls it.

 

Same thing the serpent asked Eve.

 

It seems clear that KJV-only advocates cannot give any valid, consistent scriptural reasons for their man-made KJV-only theory. Are they unable to see that a consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611 and would be true for those believers who speak languages other than English as well as those who speak it?

 

Same thing the serpent asked Eve. </font>[/QUOTE]Remember the serpent distorted scriture. So who's the serpent here?

 

Is it just me, or do KJVO's have this thing for quoting the serpent? Seems like everytime a KJVO can't or won't answer a question, they pull out this quote.

 

There is only (1) version of the KJV. All of the subsequent editions were not revisions, they were just that, editions that corrected spelling and printer's errors, rightly removing the Apocrypha, and using different forms of the same word.

So, to answer your question, the KJV is the version that accurately represents the originals.

No English Bible, then or now is 100% perfect as a translation. Even the KJV that I take to the pulpit every Sunday contains a few typographical errors. All English Bibles preceding the KJV that were based on the Traditional Received Text was perfect in that it contained no error of fact.

The KJV became necessary then for the same reason it is necessary today. "In 1603 when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, the text of the Bible, current in a variety of English translations, was a source of division among religious parties in England rather than a bond of unity. In order to reconcile differences among the various parties, the king called for a conference to be held in January 1604 at Hampton Court." From this conference the decision to translate a new Bible was born.


The Bible in Translation Bruce M. Metzger pg. 70

 

Dr bob is correct. The KJV has undergone several MAJOR revisions to update language, syntax, and verbage. It has also undergone several MINOR revisions to correct printing errors, typos, etc. In total, the number of major and minor revisions that the KJV has undergone is over 10. Yet the idea of revising the KJV to update language, syntax, and verbage is viewed by KJVOists as heresy, despite the fact that the history of the KJV (not to mention scripture itself) does not support the KJVO resistance to an update.

 

I have always found that a person who has clear reasons can also give clear answers.

 

That is simply not true.

There are MAJOR revisions, with completely different words and phrases. At least FOUR. + the 100 editions, each different than the others. And even ONE change makes it "not the same". </font>[/QUOTE]Just to follow your "logic" Doc, everytime a hair falls from your mustache, does that mean you're a different person each time? Or is it necessary for any certain number for there to mandate this "change"?

For one "perfect" note: it's the alteration and the evidences of misconceptions that are the concern when the Word of God is read. I 99% agree with the other Bob, but will never agree to any "mistakes" in the KJB, for in thought, clarity, wording , and Truth, there are NONE.

 

So is it now that we are to tally your remark as the alter-ego to reason? Be a littlew more ( )

*clear* (for those left in want)

 

That is simply not true.

There are MAJOR revisions, with completely different words and phrases. At least FOUR. + the 100 editions, each different than the others. And even ONE change makes it "not the same". </font>[/QUOTE]My statement above should have read, "All of the subsequent editions were not versions, they were just that, editions..."

I still assert that the text of the KJV is the same version since 1611 that has undergone a handful of revising. I do not count the various "editions" like Thompson Chain Reference, Scofield, Rice Reference Bible, etc. to be what the original question implied.

Sure, each correction did constitute a "change" in the text, but the change was always to "correct" the text and not to "change" it.