I'm firmly in the KJV Preferred Camp. So, your question is moot. However, It is a valid question to ask which of the editions of the AV 1611 is the perfect one. As there is more than one to choose from.
-
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!
The KJB VS the usual suspects
- Thread starter George Antonios
- Start date
-
- Tags
- kjv kjvo usual suspects
- Status
Well, you say the KJV is perfect, despite its proven errors, but you REFUSE to state which of the many KJV editions is perfect.
Looks as if you're arguing for the sake of arguing, as you haven't backed up your assertion with one quark of evidence.
So, for now, the term "Bible Aesop", teller of tall tales, fits you !
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Not "preferred", how cute. The question is which is "perfect"?
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Says a man who doesn't believe the Bible is perfect anywhere, in any version, in any language.
37818
Well-Known Member
KJOnlyism has never made sense to me. I saw a reason the KJV was likely the better Bible, looking up references at issue using a Nestle's (not Aland) Greek NT in 1968.
Lets get a precise answer from you before this thread is closed.
1) Do you believe the KJV 1611 is the perfect word of God? simple yes or no will do
2) Do you use the the KJV 1611 on a daily basis? Simple yes or no will do
3) or do you use the KJV 1762?
4) Since it was part of the 1611, do you accept the Apocrypha as the Word of God.
A simple yes or no will do.
My thinking is not "winning the argument" I just want to be on the correct side
What is your thougth of the following :
The King James version contains several mistranslations; especially in the Old Testament where the knowledge of Hebrew and cognate languages was uncertain at the time. Most of these are minor and do not significantly change the meaning compared to the source material.[159] Among the most commonly cited errors is in the Hebrew of Job and Deuteronomy, where Hebrew: רֶאֵם, romanized: Re'em with the probable meaning of "wild-ox, aurochs", is translated in the KJV as "unicorn"; following in this the Vulgate unicornis and several medieval rabbinic commentators. The translators of the KJV note the alternative rendering, "rhinocerots" [sic] in the margin at Isaiah 34:7. On a similar note Martin Luther's German translation had also relied on the Vulgate Latin on this point, consistently translating רֶאֵם using the German word for unicorn, "Einhorn."[160] Otherwise, the translators on several occasions mistakenly interpreted a Hebrew descriptive phrase as a proper name (or vice versa); as at 2 Samuel 1:18 where 'the Book of Jasher' Hebrew: סֵפֶר הַיׇּשׇׁר, romanized: sepher ha-yasher properly refers not to a work by an author of that name, but should rather be rendered as "the Book of the Upright" (which was proposed as an alternative reading in a marginal note to the KJV text).
Thank you
What entitles you to put words in the mouths of others that they do not state?
Perhaps you assume incorrectly or jump to wrong conclusions.
Questions do not determine or establish the truth. You do not answer questions that are asked you so why should others answer your questions?
Where do the Scriptures instruct you to ask that question?
Where do the Scriptures instruct you that there would be an absolutely perfect English Bible translation
or that an exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611 are to be assumed to be infallible interpreters/translators?
Do you in effect reject the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages from which the KJV is translated and from which the KJV would derive its authority as a translation?
Perhaps you try to dodge or avoid your burden of proof to prove your KJV-only opinions to be true by trying to hide behind your questions. Questions that assume as true unproven premises would be invalid questions.
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
Psalms 19:7, "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple."
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Imagine a Muslim forum where the majority-and-Orthodox Muslims pride themselves in stating that there is no perfect Qur'an anywhere.
Welcome to modern American Christianity where Orthodoxy is denying the perfection of the Bible.
The serpent prevails again, Eve.
Welcome to modern American Christianity where Orthodoxy is denying the perfection of the Bible.
The serpent prevails again, Eve.
You do not prove your allegation to be true. Perhaps you jump to a wrong conclusion.
KJV-only reasoning in effect denies the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in original languages, undermining the authority on which the secondary authority of the KJV depends.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
The question is not about KJB. It's about any Bible now.
It's easy to believe in the "authority" of something [originals] that doesn't exist. That doesn't take faith nor requires accountability. There is no "authority" to something that doesn't even exist.
The heretic Bart Ehrman is at least consistent: if preservation is not true, then inspiration of the originals is a moot point: if God didn't preserve perfectly, then he didn't inspire perfectly.
Duh.
This teaching is the logical end point of the denial of a perfectly preserved Bible (I didn't say KJB) and it is now being taught to the new generation in Christian institutions.
Those heretics will be your children, for you deniers of any perfect preservation have fathered them.
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
For what reasons?
Proverbs 30:5, "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."
Psalms 12:6, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."
Luke 4:4, ". . . That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
You keep trying to bring this back to the KJB to hide the fact that you don't believe any Bible anywhere.
Do you try to hide the fact that you do not practice what you preach?
You don't name and identify any Bible before 1611 that you believe to be perfect.
You don't even name and identify any specific edition of the KJV before a present post-1900 edition that you will back up as being absolutely perfect. You likely know that the 1611 edition of the KJV was not perfect since it had some errors. The 1769 edition of the KJV was also not perfect since it had some errors, one error that remained in most KJV editions for over 100 years.
You are uninformed and misinformed concerning actual verifiable facts concerning KJV editions. You speculate and assume without learning the truth.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Says a man who doesn't believe any Bible anywhere.
KJV-only advocates are deniers of any perfect preservation of one particular Hebrew Old Testament text and any perfect preservation of one particular Greek New Testament text.
The assumed problem of the actual variations in the preserved OT manuscripts and in the preserved NT manuscripts is the same for those who hold a non-scriptural KJV-only theory as for those who do not blindly accept human KJV-only reasoning.
You do not provide any quotation where I state what you allege. You incorrectly assume that you can read my mind and know what I believe
Your bogus tactic of putting words in the mouths or minds of others is wrong.
You do not answer sound questions asked you while you try to hide behind invalid questions that assume unproven premises.
- Status