My dog ate my BAGD!

I agree. It should not even be labeled God's word. </font>[/QUOTE]How about when the KJV says "God forbid" in Romans 3:4, 3:6, 6:2, 6:15, 7:7, 7:13, 9:14, 11:1, and 11:11? Should those very poor translations cause the KJV to not even be labeled God's Word?

I have no particular interest in the NRSV. All I know of it is that many liberals prefer it- which is enough to leave me uninterested in seeing it.

It is your argumentation that I am questioning.

 

We have the example of Jesus Himself, who used another version. Consider this passage from Isaiah:

1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me;
because the LORD hath anointed me
to preach GOOD TIDINGS UNTO THE MEEK;
he hath sent me to BIND UP the brokenhearted,
to PROCLAIM LIBERTY to the captives,
AND THE OPENING OF THE PRISON TO them that are BOUND;
2 To PROCLAIM the acceptable year of the Lord.
(Isa. 61:1-2, KJV)

Now consider the same passage as it appears in the Bible Jesus used and read from in his hometown synagogue:

16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up FOR TO READ. 17 And there was delivered unto him THE BOOK of the prophet Esaias. And when he had OPENED THE BOOK, he found THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS WRITTEN,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because HE hath anointed me
to preach THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR;
he hath sent me to HEAL the brokenhearted,
to PREACH DELIVERANCE to the captives,
AND RECOVERING OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND,
TO SET AT LIBERTY them that are BRUISED,
19 To PREACH the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he CLOSED THE BOOK, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is THIS SCRIPTURE fulfilled IN YOUR EARS.
(Lk. 4:16-21, KJV)

If using a different version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

 

If using a different version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother Archangeel7 - Preach it!

BTW, because there are various versions
of the "KJV" request in your scripture
citation you use one of the following:
KJV1611
KJV1769
KJV1873
Thank you.
Your post above may be quoting the
KJV1769.

 

But since the originals are lost, how can that happen? </font>[/QUOTE]Notice yet again how you are either a) unable to read or b) unable to be honest. I did not say "the originals." I said "the original language texts." There is quite clearly a difference. The original language texts are the 5000+ manuscripts that God has preserved for us. Recognizing simple words and their meaning helps you to grow in understanding. It is unfortunate that you are unwilling to do that.

 

BTW Brother Ed,

My quotes are from the KJV1769.

HankD

 

HomeBound said:

I was sitting here trying to think of things to say against you non-KJB believers and realize that it will not do me any good. I will just have to pray that the Holy Spirit will open your eyes and see that God has preserved his word in one English Bible.

Translation: Having failed to defend KJV-onlyism and refute its skeptics either with Scripture or sound reason, HomeBound is now retreating back into faulty reasoning, vain imaginations, and traditions of men. Never let the facts get in the way of a good false doctrine.

Which version of the Bible is correct and by what means do you have to prove it?

This question is based on a KJV-only presupposition that has yet to be proven by the KJV-onlyists: the all-or-nothing premise that God's Word consists exclusively of a single translation.

Therefore it is a loaded question. Answering it implies agreement with the unproven premise, and so the KJV-onlyists get to control the terms of the debate.

I refuse. The onus is on the KJV-onlyists to prove their case, not for me to prove mine.

 

No it is not a loaded question.We have shown you and those like you countless times that the MVs come from wretched,corrupted texts;I knew you would crawfish out of that one.

 

Anti-Alexandrian said:

No it is not a loaded question.We have shown you and those like you countless times that the MVs come from wretched,corrupted texts;

No, I meant it was never done without illogic and outright dishonesty.

 

Why would you want to say anything against another Christian?

There is pride and vanity in these words. I would ask you to review James 4:3.

Why are you asking God to make us agree with you when His Word doesn't support your position? Is it not more important to obey ('agree with', in this case) God than man? Where is your scripture proving KJVOnlyism? Short of scripture, where is your historical proof?

My prayer is that God will correct me if I am wrong on this and other contentious issues. If I am right, I desire the ability to convince others and be stedfast in the truth... to prove all things and hold on to that which is true.

 

Isn't it funny that, in your world, all of us who are not KJVO are nothing more than "non-KJV Believers?" I use the real, honest-to-goodness 1611 Authorised Version, NOT one of the modern revisions. If you aren't using the REAL AV, then it would appear that I love the AV more than you do.

One more time: God preserved His Word in more than one language. He also preserved His Word in several English versions. I don't believe in KJVO because nobody can provide even one Scriptural Passage that supports the total disregard of all other translations (not even Gipp et al over at Chick Publications). Bottom line: God didn't need King James.