KJVo dare!

POR: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"?

If his mustache didn't change for 30 years, I'd believe there was something ARTIFICIAL about it.

For one "perfect" note: it's the alteration and the evidences of misconceptions that are the concern when the Word of God is read.

Actually, many of the alterations are actually TRANSLATORS' CHOICES, as has been demonstrated.


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.

Despite the fact that several mistakes have been CLEARLY PROVEN on this very board? or, like many other KJVOs, do you deny their existence? That seems to be the case, as you can't provide one blip of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for your myth.

We have clearly proven the MAN-MADE ORIGINS of the KJVO myth. If you cannot provide any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for it, then the HONEST thing to do is admit it's FALSE. Note that no one's asking anyone to abandon the KJV; we're just showing everyone that the myth that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation is totally MAN-MADE, totally WITHOUT PROOF, and totally FALSE, a myth that should NOT be supported by ANY Baptist or other English-speaking Christian.

To avoid answering a simple question whose answer could lend a little credence to your myth while supporting that myth anyway is DISHONEST.

 

"Things that are different are not the same."

 

1769

None: Latin

NA: See Above

That was easy.

Lacy

 

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) </font>[/QUOTE]No, just 1 Peter 3:15.

 

While likely desiring to minimize the differences, D. A. Waite admitted that there are "136 substantial changes" between the 1611 KJV and the current KJV [Oxford edition] plus "285 minor changes of form" (DEFENDING THE KJB, p. 244). After hearing this claim of only 421 differences being repeated several times as though it was fact, I decided to check out Waite's comparison. I have found in comparing the 1611 edition and the present Oxford edition that Waite actually counted less than one half
and probably only one third of the actual changes.
I only counted the same type of changes that Waite himself counted. A good number of the ones that Waite overlooked or did not count would belong to the category that he called "substantial changes." Waite's count of 421 is off more than 700.

Some claim that all these changes were simply the correction of printing errors. I found have found that some of the renderings in the 1611 that were changed later were the responsibility of the KJV translators themselves in that they kept them from the Bishops' Bible.

 

We are talking about what the KJVO consider the "pure" and "perfect" Word(s) of God not Dr. Bob's hairy mustache.

Besides, what ever happened to the once daily mantra of:

"things which are different are not the same".

So are you now saying that things which are different are the same?

So the NASB = KJV?

HankD

 

Does that mean that God made some mistakes in the 1611 that had to be fixed by later editors?

Then you call Erasmus a liar because he originally set out to compile a Greek text so he could correct errors in the Latin.

Then you stand in oppisition to early English Bible translators.

Sure was. However, easy is not always right.

 

I believe you've libeled the brother, and unless you can prove your assertions that he is baiting or trying to ensnare, then I think you should be apologizing. Attacks are common from people have no answer. Your lack of a true answer just goes to prove that there is no evidence to back up your one version only position. If the KJV is the only perfect word of God, then those before weren't and God is a liar, which we know he isn't. We, however, can't be so sure about the militant, non-answering kjVersion onlyists.

 

Same thing the serpent asked Eve. </font>[/QUOTE]Not really, Ralph. Your attempt to deflect isn't working. Do you have anything to add other than your constant nonsense and misrepresentations of the Word of God and the brethren?

 

The words "edition" and "revision" are sometimes
used as synonyms.

Even a KJV-only author has used the word "edition" as a synonym for "revision."
For example, KJV-only advocate David Cloud
referred to the Geneva Bible as "an edition of the Tyndale" and the KJV as "another edition
of Tyndale" (ROME AND THE BIBLE, p. 106).

 

If the KJVO position was not so sadly non-Scriptural, it would be laughable! Anyone who limits God to passing down His word in a single translation is extremely naive, to say the least. And dodging the questions simply shows a lack of truth in the KJVO argument - if the KJVO position is true then there would be concrete answers that could be provided. But since the KJVO position is the "house built upon the sand," then there can be no answers to these questions.

However, I do have a question for the non-KJVO crowd. Is it really fair to make the KJVO crowd so dizzy, since they go into a spin every time they try to avoid legitimate questions?

 

You mean to say that God is not limited by the KJV English translation and can actually work through others to come up with an excellent translation in another language such as Luther did in German. WOW!

 

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

Looks as if he's quite straightforward to me. if ya can't answer his questions, please be man enough to admit it.

If the KJVOs had a legit answer, then why haven't they given it long ago? Why do they often reply, "This was answered long ago" when it HASN'T been?

We've had two recent threads asking for SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth run their course without an answer. Scripture is basic to the whole legitimacy of any doctrine concerning worship, ans the KJVO has absolutely NO SCRIPTURE justifying their man-made myth. That alone makes KJVO false.

Fact: the modern KJVO myth was taken from a book named"Out Authorized Bible Vindicated", by SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson, published in 1930.

Fact: Every KJVO argument has been proven wrong. Any KJVO think otherwise? Then post one you believe is correct.

Fact: There's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for any part of the KJVO myth. Again, if you think otherwise, let's see some evidence.

The KJVOs have presented us with a theory they take as doctrine, a doctrine that's hardened into dogma with some...and expect us to believe it just upon their say-so...contrary to the Baptist belief upon the authority of the Bible. We have repeatedly asked the KJVOs for just one legitimate reason for us to believe their rhetoric, and have NEVER received a straight, honest answer. Truth is...THEY HAVE NOTHING! The KJVO simply CANNOT provide any justification for his/her myth. All they have to offer are EXCUSES.

Many KJVOs are well-meaning Christians....they simply haven't studied the KJVO myth enough to know how bogus it is. Others have done so, but are so addicted to it that they can't give it up, so they invent an endless list of excuses, as if they'd somehow justify it.

Some, when they realize they're not gonna get anywhere with such excuses, try attacking us who openly attack their myth. That won't work either, as they're bringing a knife to a gunfight. They accuse us of "wasting our time" attacking their myth and suggest we could better use time and bandwidth witnessing, etc. This is a dodge, as Christian activity includes FIGHTING FALSE DOCTRINES as well as witnessing, with each believer doing what God specifically calls them to do.

There is but ONE legitimate reason to be KJVO(or any other one-version-onlyist) & thats PERSONAL PREFERENCE. Any other excuse is simply...WRONG. And NNE has the right to blast someone else's choice of Bible version(s) without proof that person is indeed using a bummer. Just because the other person's choice is different doesn't make it wrong.

P.S.

Sorry, Pastor Bob, but your statement that the KJV is "the" version that accurately represents the originals is completely without foundation, as we don't have the originals. There's just as much proof that the Geneva Bible, or the NIV represents them. What WOULD be correct is to say the KJV accurately represents its sources, but then so does the Geneva and the NIV.

KJVO=A REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE!