KJVOnly or KJV?

[Logos1560]

First, the interpreters of the King James Version included separatists, Presbyterians, Methodists and a few independents as well as a majority of Church of England bishops.
Jim

The interpreters/translators who made the 1611 KJV did not include any separatists, independents, Presbyterians, or Methodists. A few of the KJV translators were or had been Puritans, but the Puritans were still members of the Church of England. All the translators/interpreters were members of the Church of England.

A majority of them were not bishops although they had offices or high positions in the Church of England.

KJV-only author David Cloud claimed that “only three of the men assigned to the KJV translation committee in 1604 were bishops” (Glorious History, p. 153). Gerald Hammond listed five translators as being bishops [Lancelot Andrewes, Thomas Ravis, George Abbot, William Barlow, James Montagu] (Making of the English Bible, pp. 138, 231 note 3). Some translators were made bishops between 1604 and 1611, which includes Ravis in 1605 and Abbot in 1609. Some translators were made bishops after 1611 such as Miles Smith around 1612 and John Overall in 1614 and perhaps some others. Thomas Bilson was also already a Bishop, but he is not listed as a member of any of the six translation groups or committees.

 

[Jim1999]

Being Anglican in nature is not something to be feared. Men in the Church of England, until recently, were God fearing men of the word. Think of all the great authors who gave us great studies in the word over the years.

I was saved in the Church of England before I ever stepped foot into a Baptist Church.

It should also be noted that the Brethren, methodists and Puritans were all members of the Church of England before they went their own ways. Wesleys and Whitfield died members of the Church of England. It was after Wesley's death the first Wesleyan Methodist church was formed. I would suggest a sound evangelical foundation.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[ray Marshall]

First, the interpreters of the King James Version included separatists, Presbyterians, Methodists and a few independents as well as a majority of Church of England bishops.
It is fine to call it an "Anglican" version because are definitely some verses that lean to the episcopal theology.

Anglican is the name used to all episcopal churches in the world, except the USA, which preferred to be lablelled as Episcopalian,,,,,,,,actually the form of church government,,rule of the bishop,,for all Churches of England, Anglican.

In 1611, the language used in the KJV was becoming the common language of the people and hence KJV's were chained to every Church of England lecturn and in Church libraries, to make the Bible aailale to all English speaking peoples. King James decided the Bible should be available to all peoples in their language, and so it was in that day.

To-day, however, things are different. Words and phrases have changed meaning, Some even reversed in meaning. The time to update the goals of King James has arrived and hence mv's.

I still love my KJV and use it in sermons and public readings.I also use all mv's in personal reading and study, including those written by liberal theologians. Anything that opens avenues of understanding God's word is acceptable to me. When I reach perfection I will demand a perfect copy of God's word. Meanwhile there are more important missions in my remaining years and Imust work whilst it is still day, for the night is approaching when my work shall cease.

For those who choose the KJV for its poetic style, there is a verse that most pastors will not read in public"

In the last days they shall drink their own piss and eat their own dung. Some poetry for public display.

Cheers,

Jim

I have not read the two words concerning p--- and d--- in the new testament anywhere.
In the ot I have read the word p---eth against the wall and probable have read something concerning eat their ownd--- maybe. [Bible attack deleted]

 

[preachinjesus]

I have been patiently awaiting a reply from several individuals who basically accused me of heresy and threw my character under the bus. Its been more than a couple of days and I've noticed they posted elsewhere.

Looking forward to their replies.

 

[Rippon]

I have read gutter street language in the so called New Living Bible, which isn't a bible but plain garbage. Thanks now that thing called a bible isn't around anymore.

You are confused.The old "Living Bible" is not the New Living Translation i.e.NLTse.You better get the facts straight.Furthermore, I guess you disagree with the Preface of the 1611 KJV.

Before you call any old Bible garbage -- wash your mouth and mind prior to typing.You're treading dangerous ground.

 

[Keith M]

I have been patiently awaiting a reply from several individuals who basically accused me of heresy and threw my character under the bus. Its been more than a couple of days and I've noticed they posted elsewhere.

Looking forward to their replies.

Forgive them. They know not what they do.

Don't hold your breath, PJ! KJVOs (and some non-KJVOs) normally don't apologize for anything. I believe it's usually because of pride and arrogance.

Let's go back a minute to your post on Christmas Eve Eve (Dec. 23) in which you responded to a few things I'd previously said.

I said...

I firmly believe the Bible IS divine.

Your response was...

Respectfully, I don't think you do. I affirm that you believe the Bible is the product of divine inspiration but that it is not on the level of the Godhead. The theological implications for saying the Bible is divinity are just too wild and crazy. But I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Yup! What you said! That sums it up pretty well.

I should have explained myself a little better. I meant I firmly believe the Bible is of divine origin (inspiration). I definitely don't believe the Bible is on a par with God. I definitely don't believe the Bible, the written word of God, is the same as Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God. And thank you for not wanting to put words in my mouth - there's enough of that going on around here already. I won't name names or point fingers, but you can read posts in several threads in this forum and easily see those who put words in the mouths of others and those who don't.

 

[ray Marshall]

You are confused.The old "Living Bible" is not the New Living Translation i.e.NLTse.You better get the facts straight.Furthermore, I guess you disagree with the Preface of the 1611 KJV.

Before you call any old Bible garbage -- wash your mouth and mind prior to typing.You're treading dangerous ground.

Knowledge puffeth up

 

[ray Marshall]

You are confused.The old "Living Bible" is not the New Living Translation i.e.NLTse.You better get the facts straight.Furthermore, I guess you disagree with the Preface of the 1611 KJV.

Before you call any old Bible garbage -- wash your mouth and mind prior to typing.You're treading dangerous ground.

[Bible attack deleted - these attacks on the Bible will continue to be deleted and you face possible suspension for posting in violation of the rules]

 

[Jim1999]

Try 2 Ki 18:27 "...Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? (KJV)

"....men sitting on the wall - who, like you, will have to eat their own filth and drink their own urine? (NIV)

Strong "gutter" talk in either translation???? or just the word of God in truth?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[ray Marshall]

You are confused.The old "Living Bible" is not the New Living Translation i.e.NLTse.You better get the facts straight.Furthermore, I guess you disagree with the Preface of the 1611 KJV.

Before you call any old Bible garbage -- wash your mouth and mind prior to typing.You're treading dangerous ground.

Where is this thread going? Whatever version you preffer doesn't bother me, why should it Bother you so much? Just leave me to my preference of the KJV and let it be.

 

[ray Marshall]

You are confused.The old "Living Bible" is not the New Living Translation i.e.NLTse.You better get the facts straight.Furthermore, I guess you disagree with the Preface of the 1611 KJV.

Before you call any old Bible garbage -- wash your mouth and mind prior to typing.You're treading dangerous ground.

BTW, when are you going to publish a replacement of the "Same ole sin?"
don't you think we ought to bring a new version, one that we can understand more easily?

 

[robycop3]

Samuel Owen]Nope Acts 12:4 not a mistake, [/i]

Yes, it IS!


in fact it is most accurate.

No, it ISN'T! The Greek word used here, 'pascha', meant only PASSOVER in Luke's day. There was then NO Greek word for Easter cuz EASTER DIDN'T THEN EXIST.

 

[Japheth10]

Nope Acts 12:4 not a mistake, in fact it is most accurate.

Strange,I do not see in my Greek NT(or any other that is in existence).....could Luke have made a mistake?

 

[EdSutton]

I have not read the two words concerning p--- and d--- in the new testament anywhere.
In the ot I have read the word p---eth against the wall and probable have read something concerning eat their ownd--- maybe. [Bible attack deleted]

NT, KJV (I assume 1769 flavor) "dung" occurs, in the NT two times (Lk. 13:8; Phl'p. 3:8)

P*ss does not occur in the NT, according to my Strong's.

What difference does it make if the verse Jim 1999 referred to is in the NT or the OT?

That verse found in the Bible that Jim 1999 refers to is actually found two times, with similar wording, in II Ki. 18:27 and Isa. 36:12.

(I do find it extremely strange that one who apparently is advocating the very words of the KJV as "Thus saith the Lord..." at the same time appears embarrassed by them, and has no problem mutilating two of the Bible's words when speaking about the Bible's use of the same words.)

Is something just not quite adding up, here??

Incidentally since you were unable to find the words, would you maybe like to consider doing a little more reading, first? Then 'talking'?

Most all of us including myself, were given two eyes to see with; two ears to hear with; two hands to help with; two feet to walk with; but only one mouth to yak with, by the Lord, probably for a good reason, I would think.

And since I already yak enough for both of us, you just might probably find a bit of extra time to do more good stuff with :thumbs: , with the extra time I am leaving free for you, while I'm running my own yap.

Ed

 

[ktn4eg]

If you are happy with the KJV, then this is not a debate/discussion in which you must engage.

You don't have to read those posts.

Please know that I'm saying this in my sweetest kindest typing voice.

And the thing about being a Christian a long time - many of us have been too. Most of us were raised on the KJV. We just branched out. There are folks here who use the KJV out of preference and very much support MVs.

It must be the angle from which we approach the posts because I don't read any disrespect for the KJV in the posts to which you refer. I read information that broadens my understanding.

Bitsy,

I thought I'd straightened you out on this when I had that very-short visit with you on 12/19!!

Guess not.

So, again, please memorize this mantra s-l-o-w-l-y and repeatedly several times a day until you get it right:

"There is no other accurate Bible but the AV 1611 KJV, and Ruckman, and Company are its Prophets!!!"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm only doing this to prevent the BB KJVO-SWAT-TEAM that's....as you read this bleeding-heart plea....lurking around your home's computer from abudcting you and doing things to both you and your computer that are "unspeakable and full of gory--O the half has never yet been told"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :tonofbricks:



PS--That tin of goodies was great!! :thumbs: Unfortunately I'm now reminded of that Dieter's Lament about which I told you --- "A Waist Is A Terrible Thing To Mind!" :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Askjo]

Samuel Owen]Nope Acts 12:4 not a mistake, [/i]

Yes, it IS!


in fact it is most accurate.

No, it ISN'T! The Greek word used here, 'pascha', meant only PASSOVER in Luke's day. There was then NO Greek word for Easter cuz EASTER DIDN'T THEN EXIST.

Sorry, you are wrong. I have 3 NT prior to the KJV. The 1526 NTs said EASTER. Samuel is right.

 

[Askjo]

Strange,I do not see in my Greek NT(or any other that is in existence).....could Luke have made a mistake?

Pascha could be either passover or easter. Luke did not make any mistakes.

 

[tinytim]

Sorry, you are wrong. I have 3 NT prior to the KJV. The 1526 NTs said EASTER. Samuel is right.

gEESH.... Just because 3 prior ENGLISH translations say "easter" does not mean LUKE wrote Easter... he wrote the Greek word for "Passover"...

It is NOT that hard to understand...

Pascha means Passover... NOT EASTER.

And just because someone mistranslated it as EASTER one time in history does not make it mean EASTER.

It is a mistake in the translation of the KJV.

Are you KJVOs afraid to face truth?

 

[tinytim]

Pascha could be either passover or easter. Luke did not make any mistakes.

OH REALLY!!!

So Pascha can be Passover or Easter....

I guess Easter existed before Christ rose from the grave....

Luke 2:41
(41) Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. (Pascha)

 

[Amy.G]

Does anyone know why the translators used Easter instead of passover?

There must have been a reason they made that choice. If they had a valid reason for it, then it wouldn't be a mistake.