KJVo Refuse to Answer

This was the only answer I could find under "God's Word before 1611?"

By AV1611
Oh Great KARNAK tell us, tell us. We who are in darkness pray thee, tell us!
What WAS the prefect Bible in 1605?

In HIS service;
Jim

If you folks posted other answers, then either clip and paste them here or at least point me to them. I cannot find them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

This thread is a very typical of KJVo answers. There ain't none. Two pages of beating around the bush. If it took you guys so much effort to make an answer to this, then obviously it was not a simple answer to the question, it was probably a "run-around" typical circular reasoning to get out of having to answer the specific questions.

If you can answer the questions with a true answer, then why is it so difficult to just repeat the question here. Do I need to give you multiple choice of the Bible's available in 1605?

I could give you:
Great Bible
Bishop's Bible
Geneva Bible

I would expect it would HAVE to be one of these, especially since the KJV was an updated Bishop's because too many of the sentences are quote for quote from the Bishop's, but not all.

Do I need to give you multiple choice of the many versions of the KJV?

Here is the problem, you folks do NOT have answers because if you did it would destroy your KJVo theory. For example, if the Bishop's Bible was word-for-word correct, why would it vary from the KJV? Why would the KJV need to be written?

Which version of the KJV is the word-for-word correct edition, we have shown there ARE differences between the 1611 and Oxford. Not just spelling and printers errors like many say. Real differences.

Since the NASB is known to be more literal than the KJV, then maybe I should become an NASB onlyist.

Funny how the KJVo say there are many things missing in the new versions, when most of those versions print scripture that was probably added by hand-held copying.

Just answer the questions.

 

What do you mean by edit my quetions? I have already expressed my quetions. NOBODY has responded with an answer. I may provide a rebuttal for your answer, but do you have a problem with that, because you can then reply.

I cannot edit what YOU type in, unless you put personal attacks in and then the moderators will edit them.

Go ahead and post your answers, I do not understand what is so difficult about this. Look at the posts above about unicorns, do you think that is answering my question?

Do you think the big long sermon about that's what I believe because God is a perfect God is an answer to what Bible was perfect in 1605 if God preserved His Word for all generations in a word-for-word PERFECT translation?

Answer away, that's what I've been asking for two pages.

 

This is worse than pulling teeth. I am beginning to believe there are no answers that will allow KJVonlyism to survive.

 

You folks are free to open a new thread on unicorns. I want a KJVo to answer my questions and I don't need any distractions (like they tend to do.) So, I please ask for help from my friends who are non-KJVo to discuss this on another thread.

I do NOT mean to offend anybody. I want to see how the KJVo believers justify this anomaly. Thank you all.

 

Since nobody is posting tonight, I guess I will break my own request. King James Bible Only you hit the nail on the head.

If it takes Webster's 1828 Dictionary to understand the KJV, would not a modern version work, if not as well, but maybe better?

By the way. I could not pull up your website.

 

If you truly want me to edit my questions, I will. Whether it is to explain my reasoning or clarify, I would think you could see what I am getting at.

The bottom line is that I picked 1605 out of the blue sky. The hard-core KJVo says there is a word-for-word perfect Bible for each generation. If we English speaking people are so priviledged to have this Bible while unreached people groups don't, then you have a problem

If there was a word-for-word perfect Bible in English in 1605, why did it have to be replaced, and where is it? None of the old Bibles are word-for-word even close. Usually, father apart than many MVs. Example: Geneva, carried over by the pilgrams because of prosecution by the church of England.

Bishop's Bible, the closest because it is the version that was upgraded to come up with the
AV1611 version. Besides, the heavy use of Latin Vulgate to fill in blanks where they existed.

Was the Latin Vulgate the Word-for-word perfect version in Latin?

Now, the AV1611 and the Oxford KJV are very different and not just spelling and printer's errors. I have a list of changes that can be shared with you. This does away with a word-for-word perfect translation unless you believe in a new revelation in 1769. Which would leave all other generations speaking English--without. . .

What I do NOT want is a long diatribe of excuses why an answer cannot be given, particularly for question number one. This is a typical KJVo stunt and it is the same as the answers above. This is a debate site where we debate. For someone to come bouncing in here and say I'm right your wrong because I've studied it. Well. . . that horse won't ride.

A simple answer to question one will simply be the name of that perfect Bible, which I will then ask you why it needed to be retranslated into the KJV. Obviously, I have to spell this out in order to get an answer. But, you know what? I don't expect a true answer. I expect a big long thesis on "why"? Not "what".

I have NO problems with a KJV preferred. It is a great Bible, although somewhat dated based on Jacobean English. Plus, I do not like all translations. Some are better than others.

Sure God is perfect. But it is simply not Biblical that a word-for-word translation will exist. God's Word is preserved. But, you cannot even have a perfect translation when words in Hebrew and Greek do not translate to English no matter how hard you try.

Just answer the questions. I have a lot more that have gone unanswered by the KJVo.

 

Answer: The King James Bible.

That is the simple answer, I can explain it Biblically, historically, and logically if you like.

Answer: Yes. The King James Bible. This question is not grammatically correct. You ask, "Which version of the King James Version..." which is what it is. So, I point out, you have not edited your enquiry at this glaring redundancy. I will assume you mean "edition" the first time you said "version." Therefore,

Answer: The King James Bible.

What are the different "versions"? No need to bring up years of publication, that is not the issue. I have many King James Bibles that are exactly in keeping with each other. Buy a Cambridge Large Print Text Bible, buy a Cambrige Concord Text Bible, compare them jot and tittle and point out the variants. Is there a letter that is half printed and the other half not? Who is foolish enough to consider that an error? A missing period that is obviously supposed to be there? I think none are so dense as to assert such to be an error in the Bible. I could give you a list of King James Version printing to avoid if you are looking for the correct printing, but I really don't think you were actually searching for an answer.
Don </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, I did not see your post. Oh, I am quite calm.

1) Yes, please DO explain.

2) My brain outruns my typing so grammar is not a big issue for me on a thread such as this. Obviously, you know what I mean, but you are using a perceived error to deflect answering the question. Yes, I do have a list of word-for-word changes between the KJV1600 and the Oxford edition. These are NOT spelling and typos. These are "fixes" to an imperfect translation that was not perfect to start with. Yes, it is the inerrant Word-of God in that it contains His Words. The question IS correct there are many versions of the KJVersion. So, which is it? I will NOT accept all, because that is a cop out.

If you truly have answers, then please write them and don't play games, otherwise, I have been through every KJVo contrived game that is possible and your answers are no different. However, I will give it to you that the KJV was the word-for-word perfect Bible in 1605.

Your answer tends to make me think of Ruckman's false latter day correction--that the KJV is more accurate than Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

Where does God say that He will have perfect translators?

Why not the NKJV, after all it was translated from the TR? Oops, are there translation errors and typos in it due to first run, like the 1611KJV?

Finally, jot and tittle does not mean period, comma, letter (because if letters are changed how could the 1611 and 1769 have the same jots and tittles--NOT printer's errors--differences)?

The originals did not have punctuation, nor did the Hebrew have vowels. If we were to maintain every jot and tittle without "addition" to the Word-of-God then we should do without the spaces between the words, every vowel and punctuation marks, that were added in about 500 AD.

Why would the PERFECT word-for-word translation be granted to the English speaking world? Why not an unreached people group with a dialect that does not have a Bible? Why are WE so blessed?

If age is going to be an answer, then the Vulgate wins hands down, even though it is Latin.

 

רם רים ראים ראם
re'êm re'êym rêym rêm
reh-ame', reh-ame', rame, rame
From H7213; a wild bull (from its conspicuousness): - unicorn.

 

I will have to dig the list out. It is on my office computer. But, I do have my 1611 here with my Oxford. We can discuss some specifics. But, first, why don't you go ahead and give me an answer to my first question. You have piece mealed this thing out so much that I would like to see some answers.

If we are playing a "stalling" game, then there is no need. Since I have been through all of the excuses before, then just lay it out. You know what I want. I have written MORE than enough, that you can read through grammatical errors and answer the complete questions without me handing you a list. Actually, although I will send you a list, I wonder if you have studied the differences. I can just imagine the answers on each one. "Oh, printers error". If God is perfect with the translation, why could He not be perfect with the printing?