Non-KJBO lies

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Oh Michelle you're back. You must have forgotten my question.

Which KJV is the perfect standard?
A) 1611
B) 1762
C) 1769
D) Other (please explain)

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Oh Michelle you're back. You must have forgotten my question.

Which KJV is perfect?
A) 1611
B) 1762
C) 1769
D) Other (please explain)
--------------------------------------------------

I didn't forget it, as I answered you many times. Now let me ask you something. If you were to write a book, and your first edition had spelling errors, printing errors, typeface changes that needed to be corrected in following editions, would you consider the following editions that corrected those things, to still be that same book? And which out of those editions would you continue printing?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
The KJV is not the standard by which we judge the quality of a Bible.
--------------------------------------------------


For us English speaking believers it is and has been that standard to which to judge ALL OTHER versions thereafter, claiming to be the HOLY BIBLE.

No it isn't. The KJV translators themselves made the original language text the standard. The London Baptist Confession also made the original language text the standard as have all orthodox/fundamental confessions and statements of faith since the KJV came into being.

The tradition that you cite as your authority is less than 150 years old at the outside but more likely about 70 years old.

Your vain tradition of man does not trump what true Bible believers have held since John wrote "The end".

 

[natters]

Askjo said "The KJV translators were Bible-believing Anglicans because they were orthodox. After they finished their work from 1604 to 1611, they held the 1611 KJV with their hands. Praise the Lord!"

Bible believing? Then why didn't they just believe the Bible in 1603, instead of "correcting" that which was already perfect? Sounds like they DIDN'T believe, and instead wanted to correct and make their own version.

 

[Ransom]

We all know how the KJV-onlyists claim that if a modern Bible translation is even a little bit corrupt, it's totally worthless.

So how could the translators have been "Bible-believing"? If the KJV is perfect, then no Bible prior to it could have been; by their own argument, therefore, there was no uncorrupted Scripture before 1611. The translators could not have been Bible believers for the simple reason that there was not yet any Bible to believe, only counterfeits masquerading as "bibles."

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Bible believing? Then why didn't they just believe the Bible in 1603, instead of "correcting" that which was already perfect? Sounds like they DIDN'T believe, and instead wanted to correct and make their own version.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Natters,

You can find out why if you go to this link:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by michelle:
Now let me ask you something. If you were to write a book, and your first edition had spelling errors, printing errors, typeface changes that needed to be corrected in following editions, would you consider the following editions that corrected those things, to still be that same book? And which out of those editions would you continue printing?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

These questions are built on the completely reasonable and truthful premise that the KJV is a work of men.

But you don't claim that. You say it is a work of God... the "very words of God."

God doesn't make any errors of any kind at any time in any "edition." Your own question undermines the belief you expound.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Ransom:
We all know how the KJV-onlyists claim that if a modern Bible translation is even a little bit corrupt, it's totally worthless.

So how could the translators have been "Bible-believing"? If the KJV is perfect, then no Bible prior to it could have been; by their own argument, therefore, there was no uncorrupted Scripture before 1611. The translators could not have been Bible believers for the simple reason that there was not yet any Bible to believe, only counterfeits masquerading as "bibles."

Ah, yes my Canadian friend, you have again shown the incredible double standards and inconsistencies of the KJVO:kjbo myth.

 

[natters]

michelle, I have already read the preface of the 1611. Several times, in fact. I asked to make a point to Askjo, illustrating the inconsistency in his argument. If you had understood that, you would have understood.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
michelle, I have already read the preface of the 1611. Several times, in fact. I asked to make a point to Askjo, illustrating the inconsistency in his argument. If you had understood that, you would have understood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But what you don't understand, is that the point you are trying to make is null and void. If you understood the preface to the KJB, then you would understand why.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by Pastor KevinR:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ransom:
Michelle again displays her gross ignorance of reality:

Are you aware that the KJB translators were not only Anglican? Were you aware that many of them were Puritan and Calvinists?

Uh . . . the Puritans were Calvinist Anglicans . . . that's what a Puritan was, by definition.

The KJV translators were Bible-believing Anglicans because they were orthodox. After they finished their work from 1604 to 1611, they held the 1611 KJV with their hands. Praise the Lord! </font>[/QUOTE]It would be interesting to note if they believed the Bible before 1611, since according to many KJVO's, the Bible wasn't perfect yet. " Did the Anglican translators believe an imperfect Bible?" </font>[/QUOTE]and you also have shown the inconsistencies of the mooooooovement!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

And, on page 20 - we can close this discussion

 

[natters]

michelle said "But what you don't understand, is that the point you are trying to make is null and void. If you understood the preface to the KJB, then you would understand why."

My point is not null and void, for my point was that Askjo was entirely inconsistent with his argumentation. The Translators did not simply accept any existing Bible but instead created a new one, yet they are called "Bible Believers". If a group of translators today do not simply accept any existing Bible as "perfect" but instead create a new one, Askjo would NOT call them "Bible Believers". Inconsistency. Get it yet? No, probably not.