The KJV is sufficient for me

Ernie Brazee · Nov 1, 2001

Where in my post (reposted blow your quote) do I mention you? I have gone back through all 10 pages and no where is there a reference to you????? As far as errors, study to show thyself approved. You know the reference, don't flame for not quoting chapter and verse.

Ernie

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Ernie, You too err by attributing a false position to me. I do not doubt the Bible. I do not deny it. Far from it, I believe in the Bible and in what it teaches. I believe it is the final authority for faith and practice. That is why I reject the KJV Only position. It is unbiblical. Paul never held it; Peter never held it; Christ never held it. In fact, no Bible author held it and no one here has yet to produce a verse of Scripture in favor of it.

[ October 30, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If God can't give us a Bible without error how can He provide for our eternal salvation? If there is one error in the Bible then the whole book is corrupt. How does one separate truth from error. This argument is ridiculous. Either you believe God or you don't.
I Kings 18:21And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

Seems like this is where we are today.

Ernie

redwhitenblue · Nov 1, 2001

I think the whole debate on what version to use is utterly ridiculas, I like several different versions and they all help me in what I need to know.

karen

DocCas · Nov 1, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by redwhitenblue:
I think the whole debate on what version to use is utterly ridiculas, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Then please feel free to skip reading this forum. We, and our "utterly ridiculas" discussions, would be loth to offend your delicate sensibilities.

Chris Temple · Nov 1, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by redwhitenblue:
I think the whole debate on what version to use is utterly ridiculas, I like several different versions and they all help me in what I need to know.

karen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Karen:

I would agree that certain aspects of the translation debate are ridiculous (The KJV is the ONLY Word of God, perfect without error...) but the issue itself is important because:

1. KJVOnlyism has torn apart some areas of the Body of Christ.

2. Translations do differ (some good, some awful)

3. Textual differences do matter.

The discussions should not center around ridiculous assertions, but around textual bases, translation styles and reliable versions.

toolman · Nov 1, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:


It appears you do. Never stop learning, boy; you'll find it worth your while.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, right

Pastor Larry · Nov 1, 2001

Ernie,

Your implications are clear. Since you have joined here you have implied that anyone who understands that the KJV is not a perfect translation is doubting the word of God, or in the words of your post (quoting a verse completing out of context) halting between two opinions. However, there are clear problems with the KJV. My point is that we should not let that drive us from belief. We should try to understand the issues surrounding textual transmission and translation. There are many of us out here who do hold a biblical position on inspiration and we will not be driven from orthodoxy by those who do not understand or who choose not to face the issues.

You says, "Either you believe God or you don't." I agree. I do believe God. That is why I hold the position I do. God did give us an inerrant word but he did not choose to preserve it through miraculous means.

toolman · Nov 1, 2001

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
[QB]
3. If every major expositor agrees with you, then you should have not trouble citing several so I can look them up. I have never seen any that support your position. You appear to have a habit of not supporting your statements for some reason. You seem to want to dodge legitimate issues. I recently asked you for support that all the manuscripts for 1 Tim 3:16 read the abbreviation for theos when read under a closer examination. You have yet to provide any. Then you make this statement. I will be very interested to see your support for this. All the expositor’s I have looked at admit that the KJV and its underlying mss are in error on this point because of a scribal error and there are manuscripts to support their position.

Again who is to say that your resources are correct. It is their opinion and you make it your opinion. The KJVO's also have shown resources that support our opinion and you say they are false. It is what you are taught and what you believe. Just because you say you are right does not mean anything; it is only your opinion over another.

I enjoy the debate and enjoy hearing others opinions, I don't even mind you telling me your position and how you don't like mine, but don't tell me that everyone on the KJVO's position are false. Just because you believe the books you read does not mean that they are right. There are just as many books on the other side that would show the opposite opinion.

Click to expand...

Pastor Larry · Nov 1, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by toolman:
Again who is to say that your resources are correct. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this arena, truth can be tested and verified. Resources exist to check against one another and to do homework on these issues. I follow sources whose arguments seem to best account for the evidence. Obviously, there is room for disagreement on some things. On this particular topic (the age of Ahaziah), the problems encountered are 1) that Ahaziah was not of the house of Omri; 2) the date for the house of Omri does not seem to coincide with the dates for Ahaziah (i.e., it is not 42 years; cf ISBE, ZPEV, Wood; The reign of Omri started c. 885; ZPEV dates the reign of Ahaziah as 853 (32 two years); Wood History of Israel and Payne date Ahaziah as 841 (44 years); ISBE as 842 (43 years)- in other words, most dates given do not equal 42 years from the reign of Omri anyway

and 3) "son of" is not used in Scripture to refer to the age of a dynasty; it refers to the age of a man. Therefore, in three important categories, the argument does not work.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The KJVO's also have shown resources that support our opinion and you say they are false.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where I have said they are false, I have given support that demonstrates them to be so. I have not yet said that Thomas's assertion regarding the existence of an abbreviation for Theos in every manuscript for 1 Tim 3:16 because he has yet to produce any evidence of it. His saying so does make it true. If that is true, then it should be easy to document. However, it is most difficult to explain how the greatest textual scholars of our day are not privy to such information while Thomas is. I asked for Thomas's sources because he is making some statements that widely rejected by conservative scholars.

The problem with the KJVOnly position is that it cannot meet the test of Scriptural revelation. What Scripture says about the doctrine of inspiration cannot be met by the KJV. I reject the KJVOnly position because I believe what Scripture says about inspiration. If we want to talk about that, let's talk about it.

redwhitenblue · Nov 1, 2001

Normally I do skip this forum, but I wondered in due to simple curiosity. I was simply stating my opinion on it. I do agree that KJV onlysim has torn much of the body of Jesus apart which is why I really don't get involved in it, once again I checked this forum out of curiosity.

karen

Ernie Brazee · Nov 1, 2001

REALLY?????????????????????????????????????????

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Ernie,
Your implications are clear. Since you have joined here you have implied that anyone who understands that the KJV is not a perfect translation is doubting the word of God, or in the words of your post (quoting a verse completing out of context) halting between two opinions. However, there are clear problems with the KJV. My point is that we should not let that drive us from belief. We should try to understand the issues surrounding textual transmission and translation. There are many of us out here who do hold a biblical position on inspiration and we will not be driven from orthodoxy by those who do not understand or who choose not to face the issues.

You says, "Either you believe God or you don't." I agree. I do believe God. That is why I hold the position I do. God did give us an inerrant word but he did not choose to preserve it through miraculous means.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pastor Larry · Nov 1, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
REALLY?????????????????????????????????????????

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure what the question is. Your response is worded in such a way as to be hard to understand what it is you are questioning.

Are you denying that I correctly identified your implications? Or are you denying that I hold a biblical position?

When you post a question, please make it clear enough so that it can be responded to.

Joey M · Nov 1, 2001

All I can say after 11 pages is thank God I have the undeifiled, inerrant Word of Almighty God! Not on paper in ink, but He has made His abode in me.

John 1:1 "1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 14:23 " 23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Praise God I think I'll shout a little while over that!!!

God speed.

Ernie Brazee · Nov 2, 2001

Yes, that is my implication, and the verse is not out of context, it is my position that you either believe the God that created the universe can also prserve His Word without error or you don't, there is no middle ground. We either have the truth or we don't. I firmly believe the KJV is God's word for English speaking people today. It is God's revelation to man revealing man's sinful condition and the remedy for that condition. It is also God's user manual for man to be able to please God. We only please God when we are obedient and the only way to be obedient is to study His Word to have an understanding of what pleases God.

As for problems with the KJV, it is a heart problem. God gave me the ability to understand the KJV, there is no need for a "clearer version". Once I was born again the KJV became very clear.

1 Peter 1:21 For the prophcy came not by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I find it meaningful that Paul goes into the next chapter talking about false teachers.

To argue or debate with those who support other translations is fruitless, I am not debating but merely pointing out the truth of God's Word and again will say the choice is up to each individual but as for me I will believe God!

Ernie
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Your implications are clear. Since you have joined here you have implied that anyone who understands that the KJV is not a perfect translation is doubting the word of God, or in the words of your post (quoting a verse completing out of context) halting between two opinions. However, there are clear problems with the KJV. My point is that we should not let that drive us from belief. We should try to understand the issues surrounding textual transmission and translation. There are many of us out here who do hold a biblical position on inspiration and we will not be driven from orthodoxy by those who do not understand or who choose not to face the issues.
You says, "Either you believe God or you don't." I agree. I do believe God. That is why I hold the position I do. God did give us an inerrant word but he did not choose to preserve it through miraculous means.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ]

Alex Mullins · Nov 2, 2001

To all of you who believe that God could not, would not and did not preserve His word perfect for us from the time He inspired holy men to write His words on blank paper, I would say , it is not we, who defend this precious word, who are tearing apart the body of Christ.

It is none other than satan himself, working through the minds and actions of men over the centuries, to this very day, who would disagree with those of us who believe that God would, could and did, in fact preserve this perfect word for us, in our language today.

Like the land of Israel God has protected and preserved this word. Both are special and He promised He would, and He has done so.

It is just to logical and simple. Like salvation itself, it requires only mustard-seed faith to believe the God of the KJB could do such a thing.

This posting in itself, 11 pages of bible "specialists" waxing eloquent, each one trying harder than the one before to express his superior knowledge of the mind of God.....creating bad feelings toward each other, is proof that the only winner in this debate is satan himself. Ask yourself, "is it God who has us saying these harsh words to each other?"

Oh, how you KJV naysayers have underestimated God's power and ability to preserve the perfect word and how you have underestimated satan's ability to attempt to pervert, weaken and make ineffective this perfect word.

This battle to preserve the very Word of God has been going on for 2000 years and will go on until His glorius return.

To all you who defend this precious word I want to remind you that the word of God, next to the Son and the Holy Spirit, is the most precious gift Christ He has left His church. It contains His plan for the ages, the devine revelation of His entire program.

Mankind has been trying for centuries to rewrite this plan, even to the point of receiving new revelation.

We have a solemn duty to continue to defend it and it's purity to the very end.

If anyone had taken the works of Milton or Shakespeare and mutilated them, as they have this precious word, it would never have been tolerated.

Why should we continue to preserve this precious word? I can think of eight reasons.

1.Because it has stood the test of time and is still accepted as "the Bible" in the true Christian church.
2. The AV is the only version not copyrighted.
3.Because of the honesty of the translators in italicizing words that were added for the sake of clarity and for not altering the basic doctrines of our faith.
4.Because of the beauty of the language.
5.Because I was saved by hearing it's words.
6.Because of it's power in the founding of Baptist churches througout history.
7.Because, in this very word, God promised He would preserve it and that in the end times (over the past 2000 years) the very elect would be deceived.
8. Because I believe it is the inspired, preserved perfect Word of God for people who speak the English language, by far the predominant language of this age and time.

Some of you can probably think of more reasons, but it is early and I need to get out there and win some souls today.

As usual, I have tried very hard not to offend anyone.

I ask only that you reciprocate.

God Bless and have a wonderful day.

Chris Temple · Nov 2, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
To all of you who believe that God could not, would not and did not preserve His word perfect for us from the time He inspired holy men to write His words on blank paper.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Until the KJVO crowd begins to understand that they are arguing a non sequiter when they claim that to reject the KJV as perfect is to reject the Word of God as presevered, there is no table of discussion.

The word of God was preserved centuries before the KJV, and will be centuries after the KJV.

Isaiah 40:8 (ESV)
The grass withers, the flower fades,
but the word of our God will stand forever. (written before the KJV, btw)

Pastor Larry · Nov 2, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> and the verse is not out of context, it is my position that you either believe the God that created the universe can also preserve His Word without error or you don't, there is no middle ground. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. The verse you quoted is in the context of offering sacrifices and worship to false gods. You are quoting it concerning textual transmission and translation. That is a textbook definition of “out of context.” Elijah was not talking about Scripture. Nor am I halting between two opinions.

2. I do believe that God created the universe in six, successive, literal 24-hour days. I also believe that God CAN preserve his word without error. None of that is the point. The point is “Did (not can) God preserve his word that way?” The answer is unequivocally NO. The fundamentalist position has always been that the Word of God is inspired and without error in the original manuscripts. No fundamentalist has ever believed differently and I suggest that no fundamentalist believes differently today. There are 5000+ manuscripts that are all different. Which one is the Word of God?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We either have the truth or we don't. I firmly believe the KJV is God's word for English speaking people today. It is God's revelation to man revealing man's sinful condition and the remedy for that condition. It is also God's user manual for man to be able to please God. We only please God when we are obedient and the only way to be obedient is to study His Word to have an understanding of what pleases God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All of these things are accomplished by any good translation. There is no heart problem involved with understanding the KJV. It is a language problem. If you like and understand the KJV, have at it. But understand that it is not a perfect translation. Understand that it includes verses for which there is little or no manuscript support. Understand that it mistranslates words. Understand that words used in 1611 have now changed meaning with the result that you will get a false understanding from it. It is a good translation. But that is all it is – a translation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>1 Peter 1:21 For the prophcy came not by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I find it meaningful that Paul goes into the next chapter talking about false teachers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a merely technical matter, Paul did not go on to write anything in the next chapter. However, more to the point, that verse is in my NASB and NIV. It is in the RSV, NRSV, NLT, etc. No one disputes that verse though some dispute the implications of it. I do not. This verse speaks of the divine nature of Scripture and is a testimony to inerrancy. So what is your point? Do you think I disagree with this verse?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> … as for me I will believe God! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the kind of baseless implication that is ridiculous. I believe God’s word and I believe what Scripture teaches about inspiration. That is why I reject your position. It is unbiblical. Where did God reveal to you that the KJV is his only Word for the English language? In all of your posting, you have yet to post a verse that identifies the KJV. Why? Could God not give us such a verse to remove all doubt?

So in summary, answer the following:

1. Which of the 5000+ manuscripts is the Word of God?
2. Which verse identifies the KJV as the Word of God?

Pastor Larry · Nov 2, 2001

Alex, your desire is noble but I think you still being mislead on a few things. Consider a few of your eight points.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>1.Because it has stood the test of time and is still accepted as "the Bible" in the true Christian church.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False statement – there are many true Christians churches that use other translations (while still “accepting” the KJV). In fact, the vast majority of true Christian churches do not use the KJV because they don’t speak English. The KJV has stood a relatively short test of time. It is simply an invalid argument to suggest that time supports the superiority of the KJV. Less than 25% of church history has had the KJV. That means that God did his work for 75% of the time without the benefit of the KJV.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>2. The AV is the only version not copyrighted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thomas has said many times that the KJV is copyrighted. Yet you continue to give misinformation about this. Why? Furthermore, a copyright has nothing to do with the issue. Much of copyrighting has to do with protecting a work from change. Thus, a copyrighted version cannot be legally changed. The result is that the doctrine is protected.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>3.Because of the honesty of the translators in italicizing words that were added for the sake of clarity and for not altering the basic doctrines of our faith.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Two false statements in one here. It does not italicize all added words and there is no dishonesty in not italicizing them. Such words are necessary for understanding. While italicizing them has some good points, it is dishonest to suggest that it is dishonest to not italicize them. Besides the NASB does italicize. Does that make it alright?? Furthermore, you lie when you imply that the MVs alter doctrine. It is not so and no one here has yet to show a doctrine that has been changed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>4.Because of the beauty of the language.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And many people like the beauty of the language. However, it is a language we don’t speak.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>5.Because I was saved by hearing it's words.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As was I. Yet many people are saved through the words of others. Just yesterday I led a man to the Lord with a NASB. He is supposed to check in today for some initial discipleship.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>6.Because of it's power in the founding of Baptist churches througout history.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, an argument with no weight. Throughout history, most churches were founded without the KJV. It simply was not available. Churches are founded by the power of Christ.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>7.Because, in this very word, God promised He would preserve it and that in the end times (over the past 2000 years) the very elect would be deceived.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where was the KJV mentioned as the version of preservation?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>8. Because I believe it is the inspired, preserved perfect Word of God for people who speak the English language, by far the predominant language of this age and time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Belief is not the test of truth. Conformity to reality is the test of truth.

My caution is not against those who use the KJV or even those who think it is the best, such as Thomas. My caution is against arguments that are not solid arguments. As I have said before, there are good arguments on both sides of the issue and there is no clear revelation concerning it. There is room for disagreement to a certain place.

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

toolman · Nov 2, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

The problem with the KJVOnly position is that it cannot meet the test of Scriptural revelation. What Scripture says about the doctrine of inspiration cannot be met by the KJV. I reject the KJVOnly position because I believe what Scripture says about inspiration. If we want to talk about that, let's talk about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can you say this if you believe that there is no definite Scripture? What Scripture? You have yet to say? It is crazy to say all ms and transcripts contain the Scripture somewhere; there has got to be A Bible to get Scripture from. How can you witness to a JW and say that their Bible is wrong when Christians have changed their own Bibles. I believe that God preserved His Word in the KJV, I can give an answer to what Scripture I believe. Praise the Lord!

And the doctrine has changed drastically in the modern versions, Scripture and verse have been given to prove this and you still refuse to see it. The doctrinal differences is the main reason I will not use the modern versions.

Pastor Larry · Nov 2, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by toolman:
How can you say this if you believe that there is no definite Scripture? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did I say this?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I believe that God preserved His Word in the KJV, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So do I.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And the doctrine has changed drastically in the modern versions, Scripture and verse have been given to prove this and you still refuse to see it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some have given verses where words have been translated differently. They have given verses where textual variants exist. No one has yet to show a verse where a doctrine has been changed. Every doctrine is still there and in many cases it is clearer in the MVs than it is in the KJV. In this the burden of proof is on you: Show where a doctrine has been changed, not a word or phrase because of a translational choice or a textual variant. Much of the latter has been done; none of the former.

The doctrine of Scripture is the main reason why I reject the KJVOnly position. No biblical author ever held it; Scripture does not teach it; Scriptural teaching precludes it. When Scripture is your authority, you reject those things which conflict with it.

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

S. Baptist · Nov 2, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

Some have given verses where words have been translated differently. They have given verses where textual variants exist. No one has yet to show a verse where a doctrine has been changed. Every doctrine is still there and in many cases it is clearer in the MVs than it is in the KJV. In this the burden of proof is on you: Show where a doctrine has been changed, not a word or phrase because of a translational choice or a textual variant. Much of the latter has been done; none of the former.

When Scripture is your authority, you reject those things which conflict with it.

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ask for "evidence", here it is:

Matt 5:44
(NIV) But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
(KJV) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them
that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt 17:21
(NIV) MISSING!!
(KJV) Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt 19:11
(NIV) MISSING!!!
(KJV) For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt 37:25
(NIV) When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
(KJV) And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and
upon my vesture did they cast lots.

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

Mark 7:16
(NIV) MISSING!!!
(KJV) If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

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

Luke 9:55
(NIV) But Jesus turned and rebuked them,
(KJV) But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye
are of.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke 9:56
(NIV) and they went to another village.
(KJV) For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they
went to another village.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 8:37
(NIV) MISSING!!!
(KJV) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he
answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 16:24
(NIV) MISSING!!!
(KJV) The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Peter 4:14
(NIV) If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of
glory and of God rests on you.
(KJV) If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and
of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 John 5:7
(NIV) For there are three that testify:
(KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost: and these three are one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev 1:11
(NIV) which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to
Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."
(KJV) Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in
a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto
Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia,
and unto Laodicea.

If "ALL SCRIPTURE" is given by "Inspiration", why are "modern day versions" different than the KJ, did the "Spirit" just "forget" to include all the verses, after all it's been 400 hundred since he "inspired" his last book?

Matt 19:11
(NIV) MISSING!!!
(KJV) For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Do you consider the omission of verses such as the above, "insignificant"???

The KJV is sufficient for me

<img src ="/ernie.JPG">

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

<img src ="/ernie.JPG">

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

<img src ="/ernie.JPG">

New Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member