KJVo Refuse to Answer

[HankD]

Which ever one(s) behind God's word,the KJV.

That would be the Scrivener 1894 Greek New Testament. Obviously produced after the fact of the AV. It is a distillation of the various TR's (Stephanus, Erasmus, Beza) which apparently the KJV translators drew from to produce the AV1611 along with some Vulgate and "former translations" unique readings.

HankD

 

[robycop3]

robycop3: Again, Slambo...WHICH TR EDITION is the "official" one?

Slambo:Which ever one(s) behind God's word,the KJV.

OK, Slambo, WHICH EDITION of the KJV is the "official" one?

To be perfect, there hasta be one "official" KJV edition whose NT is perfectly translated from the "official" perfect edition of the TR. WHICH ONE?

 

[MasterWalk]

I'm very sorry if I started this debate about different Bible versions.
I just meant by me useing the Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible that I just need more help in understanding the Bible than other people seem to need.
I also like the Scofield Bible too.

 

[rsr]

You didn't start it. It just keeps going and going and going ...

 

[robycop3]

MasterWalk...As RSR said, the BV debate keeps on going, ad nauseum. However, we have a Christian DUTY to refute false doctrines, and long as anyone advocates or presents a false doctrine, there will be certain ones of us who will refute it.

As for YOUR choice of Bible version(s) please go with whatever version(s) to which you feel guided by the Holy Spirit, or that your pastor recommends.

But I hope you see here that GOD is NOT LIMITED to just one version in ANY language. Those who insist He IS so limited cannot present us any PROOF of this...and the knockout punch is that SCRIPTURE ITSELF doesn't support any such notion...it's entirely MAN-MADE.

It's God's will that EVERYONE have His word in an understandable format. Thst's part of why there are so many different English versions. After all, GOD CREATED THE PEOPLE, HIS WORD, AND ALL LANGUAGES. If the Lahaye Study Bible is best for YOU, then continue to use it.

 

[Slambo]

That would be the Scrivener 1894 Greek New Testament

No argument here..

 

[robycop3]

Slambo, the original question was, WHICH EDITION of the KJV is "THE" perfect one, and why? Since you mentioned the TR, WHICH EDITION is the perfect one, and why? Is it the one that the perfect edition of the KJV was made from? While Hank mentions the Scrivener GREEK NT, that's NOT the answer to our question.

Can you answer, or not?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Slambo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> That would be the Scrivener 1894 Greek New Testament

No argument here..

</font>[/QUOTE]Then I assume you have no problems with the NKJV?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by MasterWalk:
I'm very sorry if I started this debate about different Bible versions.
I just meant by me useing the Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible that I just need more help in understanding the Bible than other people seem to need.
I also like the Scofield Bible too.

You did not start the debate. As a matter of fact, I think I started this thread by asking the questions that KJVo's refuse to answer.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Which edition of the TR was used to produce the AV1611?

Trick question. There WAS NO TR in 1611.

Back to the real question at hand:
Which KJV version is the correct one? The perfect one? The infalible one? The word-for-word Word?

 

[kennethc]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Seeing as how the KJVO myth itself is a lie started by a cult member......Just add one and one...

Who and which cult? Where did this argument start? I know it has been going on a while now. But I seem to remember it was the same when the KJV came out. It was the 'heratic text' of it's day.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:

Back to the real question at hand:
Which KJV version is the correct one? The perfect one? The infalible one? The word-for-word Word?

The letter-for-letter Word of God?

 

[Slambo]

Trick question. There WAS NO TR in 1611.

Just because it wasn't called the TR until a few years later doesn't mean it didn't exist in 1611..

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Seeing as how the KJVO myth itself is a lie started by a cult member......Just add one and one...

Who and which cult? Where did this argument start? I know it has been going on a while now. But I seem to remember it was the same when the KJV came out. It was the 'heratic text' of it's day.

http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID43667%7CCHID152162%7CCIID447152,00.html

This link should answer your questions. Feel free to check out its veracity by other sources.

 

[HankD]

Actually "Onlyism" started long before 1611, RE:The Latin Vulgate:

'is not only better then all other Latin translations, but than the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree'...They state that the Vulgate is 'more pure then the Hebrew or Greek now extant'
Found online in the public domain at :

http://www.marianland.com/bible20.html

"Those who do not learn from history..."

HankD

 

[robycop3]

Maybe that's where Dr. Ruckman received his "advanced revelation" idea from, Hank.

 

[HankD]

Maybe that's where Dr. Ruckman received his "advanced revelation" idea from, Hank.

Now that you mention it, I do believe he mentions that he has had a brush with Catholicism.

HankD

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Slambo:
Just because it wasn't called the TR until a few years later doesn't mean it didn't exist in 1611.

Just like the AV1611 existed hundreds of years earlier than 1611, it just wasn't called it until 1611 . . .

Are you certifiable?

 

[manchester]

Dr. Bob, there wasn't any received text in 1611?

 

[Slambo]

It later became KNOWN as the textus Receptus.