Gregory Perry Sr.
Active Member
By the way....I showed that "slight" omission to my own VERY WELL EDUCATED Southern Baptist Pastor and it raised his eyebrow a notch or two. Bro.Greg the Sr.(yes...there is a Jr.)
-
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 Refuse to Answer
- Thread starter Phillip
- Start date
By the way....I showed that "slight" omission to my own VERY WELL EDUCATED Southern Baptist Pastor and it raised his eyebrow a notch or two. Bro.Greg the Sr.(yes...there is a Jr.)
Different Background Texts. Even the Majority Text does not have it, nor does the WH or Nestles. The only Greek Text that I have that contains the Greek word for blood is the Stephen's Textus-Receptus. (Of course the Stephen's TR didn't exist in 1611, so I don't get jumped by the scholars here.) Not considered the best by many, since even the KJV didn't even follow it at times and would often revert to the Italian Vulgate.
Otherwise, I think the Majority Text is quite clear about where it stands on the sacrifice of Jesus' blood. This is a possible well-meaning scribe's addition.
This is similar to the statement of Jesus "Get thee behind me Satan" that only shows up in the TR twice(I believe); showing up in the MT and others only in one book; very possibly a scribe trying to harmonize the gospels. Not necessarily a left out sentence. Since the Bible is clear in one gospel, the loss of it in the other gospel does not change or weaken the theology.
[ January 07, 2005, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
Otherwise, I think the Majority Text is quite clear about where it stands on the sacrifice of Jesus' blood. This is a possible well-meaning scribe's addition.
This is similar to the statement of Jesus "Get thee behind me Satan" that only shows up in the TR twice(I believe); showing up in the MT and others only in one book; very possibly a scribe trying to harmonize the gospels. Not necessarily a left out sentence. Since the Bible is clear in one gospel, the loss of it in the other gospel does not change or weaken the theology.
[ January 07, 2005, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
This thread as goen back to a typical KJVO discussion. We have never had this question answered:
Which edition of the KJV is the word for word. letter for letter PERFECT, without error, settled forever in heaven Word of God.
One change of one letter makes a different Bible according to this claim.
Apparently, there are still some things the KJVO will not answer.
Which edition of the KJV is the word for word. letter for letter PERFECT, without error, settled forever in heaven Word of God.
One change of one letter makes a different Bible according to this claim.
Apparently, there are still some things the KJVO will not answer.
C4K did you REALLY expect an answer?
Oh well, I know you are a moderator, but I also know that you guys are pretty tolerant to half-way civil socializing and a lot of times that's what these long "waiting" threads turn into.
Even though they won't answer, often interesting points are brought out by others.
Let's see what was the question. I think I even asked it? haha
Oh yeah, ONE MORE TIME, what was the English Bible in 1605 that is word-for-word perfect?
It really is interesting they can fight tooth and nail on other subjects, but just completely disappear on a few real questions.
Again, I'm not holding my breath, I may be dumb, but not that stupid.
Oh well, I know you are a moderator, but I also know that you guys are pretty tolerant to half-way civil socializing and a lot of times that's what these long "waiting" threads turn into.
Even though they won't answer, often interesting points are brought out by others.
Let's see what was the question. I think I even asked it? haha
Oh yeah, ONE MORE TIME, what was the English Bible in 1605 that is word-for-word perfect?
It really is interesting they can fight tooth and nail on other subjects, but just completely disappear on a few real questions.
Again, I'm not holding my breath, I may be dumb, but not that stupid.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
We are WAY past the 5 page optional limit. I think we should close this thread today since we really don't have an answer to the OP.
I'll give one more chance, then close this thread no earlier than noon today EST.
I'll give one more chance, then close this thread no earlier than noon today EST.
You have my blessings to close it any time you feel necessary. I think it has gone well beyond its useful life.
In fact, any thread I open, don't feel bad about closing. I know moderators are sometimes concerned about the people who open threads, but I'm a team-player and understand that it is MY privilege to post here and I do so based on YOUR rules.
Be my guest at any time and feel free to do what you feel is necessary without asking. (Even though I know you can anyway.) I agree this one is starting to smell like Lazarus before Jesus visited.
Have a good evening C4K. I think I will look around a little then close for the evening.
Oh, what is that in the picture behind you? (If it is any of my business?
Thank you,
Phillip
In fact, any thread I open, don't feel bad about closing. I know moderators are sometimes concerned about the people who open threads, but I'm a team-player and understand that it is MY privilege to post here and I do so based on YOUR rules.
Be my guest at any time and feel free to do what you feel is necessary without asking. (Even though I know you can anyway.) I agree this one is starting to smell like Lazarus before Jesus visited.
Have a good evening C4K. I think I will look around a little then close for the evening.
Oh, what is that in the picture behind you? (If it is any of my business?
Thank you,
Phillip
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
The Eiffel Tower. My wife and I love Paris and in the off season we can fly there with a budget airline for literally next to nothing.
Off for an early morning chiropractor visit in a few minutes.
Off for an early morning chiropractor visit in a few minutes.
Nice, actually, for some reason it looked like a Navy ship, like a carrier. I used to do lot of work on the electronics packages on air-craft carriers and destroyers. It was actually a lot of fun. (At least I wasn't a sailor and had to do the grunt work.)
Your picture reminded me of a Tom Clancy book, except your a lot better looking than Clancy.
Sorry, 'bout the confusion, but that's just the impression I got.
Your picture reminded me of a Tom Clancy book, except your a lot better looking than Clancy.
Sorry, 'bout the confusion, but that's just the impression I got.
Ok, I'll post.
No, I have no answer, and I don't even know if I am what you are calling KJV-only, but I'll concede anyway.
I don't really think any version is perfect, but I think the Holy Spirit can instruct toward salvation anyone with out any Bible at all, if that is His Will.
That said, I must admit, it is interesting to see people talk about raising the bar in schools, and not wanting to dumb-down our education, then support a Bible in 'modern english' that is, often, a dumbed down version. I like the KJV because I like the language. Because it has stood the test of time. What ONE Bible in the last 50 years can we call 'standard'? How many revisions has the NIV been through since it came out? How can we appeal to others when we don't agree on WHICH Word is THE Word?
I guess ultimately it is like the argument of the Constitution being a 'living' document. If we constantly allow it to mean what we want, interpret it how we want, with each 'enlightend generation', as each new version seems to do, eventually, they will no longer be THE Word.
Ultimately, it boils down to this, the KJV worked for english-speakers for hundreds of years, and new verions are replacing old ones as fast they come out - and I can't keep up with each new one's reliability, and don't want to. Given that, I trust my KJ.
Now, I hold nothing against someone who uses another, if they are convinced theirs' is an accurate translation. Mine may not be the best, but is close enough. I went to a school where Shakespeare was required reading (unlike today) and have no problem understand the 'pure original' English language.
HEHE, did I sound snooty enough? Didn't really mean to, just got a little riled at the fact I am idiot because I prefer my KJ, and would not recommend any other, without adding a disclaimer when I did (I have recommended an easier version to an adult with a 3rd grade reading level that graduated high school).
Ok, lock it now.
And thanks for letting me post.
No, I have no answer, and I don't even know if I am what you are calling KJV-only, but I'll concede anyway.
I don't really think any version is perfect, but I think the Holy Spirit can instruct toward salvation anyone with out any Bible at all, if that is His Will.
That said, I must admit, it is interesting to see people talk about raising the bar in schools, and not wanting to dumb-down our education, then support a Bible in 'modern english' that is, often, a dumbed down version. I like the KJV because I like the language. Because it has stood the test of time. What ONE Bible in the last 50 years can we call 'standard'? How many revisions has the NIV been through since it came out? How can we appeal to others when we don't agree on WHICH Word is THE Word?
I guess ultimately it is like the argument of the Constitution being a 'living' document. If we constantly allow it to mean what we want, interpret it how we want, with each 'enlightend generation', as each new version seems to do, eventually, they will no longer be THE Word.
Ultimately, it boils down to this, the KJV worked for english-speakers for hundreds of years, and new verions are replacing old ones as fast they come out - and I can't keep up with each new one's reliability, and don't want to. Given that, I trust my KJ.
Now, I hold nothing against someone who uses another, if they are convinced theirs' is an accurate translation. Mine may not be the best, but is close enough. I went to a school where Shakespeare was required reading (unlike today) and have no problem understand the 'pure original' English language.
HEHE, did I sound snooty enough? Didn't really mean to, just got a little riled at the fact I am idiot because I prefer my KJ, and would not recommend any other, without adding a disclaimer when I did (I have recommended an easier version to an adult with a 3rd grade reading level that graduated high school).
Ok, lock it now.
And thanks for letting me post.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
ActuallyOriginally posted by Gregory Perry Sr.:
Greg Sr.
the HCSB is perfect and does NOT omit
"the blood" in Colossians 1:14.
Your data is incorrect and the source from
which you got it is in error.
BTW, I note IN AWE OF THY WORD
by G.A. Riplinger (Gail)
has no list of verses quoted to help the
reader of the book find the errors.
Here is what my HCSB says:
Colossians 1:14 (HCSB):
in whom we have redemption,*[/b] the forgiveness of sins. [/b]
footnote: "Other mss add through His blood"
IMHO the HCSB is more true than the KJV1769.
The KJV1769 translators knew other manuscripts
did NOT contin "through His blood" yet they
did not document. In fact, most KJV1769s that
i've seen don't add the translator footnotes
(that show the source document variants).
In fact, very few KJV1769s share which version
of the KVJ you are dealilng with -- AKA: deception.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
On my computer desk are three paper King James Version (KJV)S that
are different:
1. A KJV1611 reprint
2. A KJV1873
3. A version that does not admit what it
is, but appears to be much like the
Authorised KJV1769
and the Authorized KJV1762
but is probably an American version -
i collectively call these the KJV1769
Which version of the KJV do you think is best?
are different:
1. A KJV1611 reprint
2. A KJV1873
3. A version that does not admit what it
is, but appears to be much like the
Authorised KJV1769
and the Authorized KJV1762
but is probably an American version -
i collectively call these the KJV1769
Which version of the KJV do you think is best?
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
That's pretty reasonable
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
It is 1145 EST. Pretty close. Thread closed.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
You closed the door, but you forgot to put the lock on it brother.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Whoops
Okay, er, uh - I was waiting till 1200 like I said
Okay, er, uh - I was waiting till 1200 like I said