Use of the KJV

KJVOs (who never use modern versions except to attack God's word) are the only ones who seem to doubt. I don't find this doubt anywhere else. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Dr. Bruce Metzger doubts the Book of Genesis. He produced his bible version. How could you deny anyone doubt the Word of God? Look at him!

 

Outsell? The KJV still outsells since 1611. You can't count - gone back to 1611. Thank God for giving us the accurate Bible for English-speaking tongue. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, the NASB is great!

 

To be honest is that you cannot deny Metzger is an unbeliever. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, OK, so you have no evidence to present. Got it.

 

So you have never misquoted the Bible or even paraphrased? </font>[/QUOTE]The Scriptures tell us plainly that Jesus himself used and sanctioned different versions. Read Isa. 61:1-2 in your KJV, then turn to Lk. 4:16-21 and read the different version of it found in the Bible Jesus used in his hometown synagogue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- if a different version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us.

 

You espoused an opinion, nothing more.

If you don't use the 1611 Authorised Version, you are using a revision of God's Holy Word. If it is indeed "perfect" then why did it have to be revised over a century after the original translation?

The Geneva Bible is also the perfect Word of God. If you believe that your KJV is "perfect" then you really have no basis for rejecting Tyndale's translation.

As for the NKJV, it is a FANTASTIC translation that actually compares the manuscripts, noting the differences in the marginal notes. My wife uses the NKJV and I really like it as well. I have yet to see anyone make a valid case for the total rejection of the NKJV.

 

Once again, you are mistaken. We have already covered this in another thread.

 

In the other thread no one at any time proved the 136 differences were anything other than printer's errors.

 

Which version of the King James Bible are you using? Does it contain the Apocrypha, as does my 1611 Authorised Version?

 

To be honest is that you cannot deny Metzger is an unbeliever. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, OK, so you have no evidence to present. Got it. </font>[/QUOTE]Some evidences what I learned about Metzger are that you still deny.

 

To be honest is that you cannot deny Metzger is an unbeliever. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, OK, so you have no evidence to present. Got it. </font>[/QUOTE]Some evidences what I learned about Metzger are that you still deny. </font>[/QUOTE] That kind of immaturity doesn't do your point of view any favors.

I don't deny what I've never seen. You might be confusing me with someone else--I'm not sure--but the first time I've ever asked you about Metzger was in the last few days, and you not only have offered me zero evidence of anything, but have accused me of ignoring or denying the evidence you've never offered me. If you've provided quotes supporting your vague charges against Metzger on another thread that I've never read, give a link to it. Don't just make false accusations.

 

No one at any time proved that they were anything other than deliberate changes of wording introduced into the text of the KJV either.

 

Here is an interesting web page i
found in my surfing:

Have you seen some of the changes
that publishers are making in your
King James Bible?

http://www.biblebelievers.com/BPS/BPS_changes.htm
So, it looks like every publisher feels
like they have the right to change
the Authorized King James Version?

 

Outsell? The KJV still outsells since 1611. You can't count - gone back to 1611. Thank God for giving us the accurate Bible for English-speaking tongue. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Was the word "currently" in my question somehow unclear? A nice try at deflecting or clouding the issue however.

Of course the KJV has had a 375 year headstart on the NIV relative to sales/distribution, that obvious fact explains why the KJV has had higher overall distribution figures since inception. The fact is though that the KJV's percentage share of Bibles distributed continues to drop, and the percentage share of MV's (including the NIV) is rising.

Roughly 12X as many people (and growing) live on Earth today as did in 1611, which makes the potential market for God's Word that much larger both today and in the future. Do the math for yourself: with the current Bible distribution & population growth patterns, eventually some other version of God's Word will surpass the KJV in overall copies. Whether that version is in English or in another language (1.2 billion+ Chinese could use copies of God's Word!) makes no difference to me. I'm not so ethnocentric that I believe that God's Word can only be perfect in the particular language I speak. God's Word is for all peoples, in all generations; and God's Word has been forever settled in Heaven, and not settled only in the English language of the early 17th century.

I was saved out of the KJV; and I will continue to use my KJV (along with my NASB & my NIV). I refuse to submit to a man-made bibliolatry however and be blinded to the truth about God's Word.

Let me put this succinctly: Based on present, measurable trends, eventually the KJV could have about as much market-share of Bibles distributed as the Geneva or Bishop's Bibles have today.

 

Which version of the King James Bible are you using? Does it contain the Apocrypha, as does my 1611 Authorised Version? </font>[/QUOTE]I generally use an Old Scofield, a Thompson Chain, and whatever comes with my Accordance Bible software. I also listen to Scourby quite a bit, it's amazing how clearly the meaning comes through his reading, especially in the epistles.

I do have the 1611 word for word reprint, which includes the apocrypha. If you haven't already, you should try reading Tobit, it's very entertaining.

As for why the 1611 translation includes the apocrypha, please see the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion, it explains it quite well.

 

Ed, we agree!
I think it's sad too. I guess there ARE some advantages to copyright.....

 

This is untrue. Will you stop repeating false teaching?
</font>[/QUOTE]Untrue? That is a main problem!

False teaching? No! </font>[/QUOTE]You have yet to show even one place where the MVs have corrupted God's word. By definition, Homebound made a statement that is false and he was teaching others by it. That is, by definition, false teaching. Until you can show this "corruption" you will lose this argument everytime. The problem is that you will not put your money where your mouth is and actually show this corruption. All you can offer is refutable arguments.

 

KJVOs (who never use modern versions except to attack God's word) are the only ones who seem to doubt. I don't find this doubt anywhere else. </font>[/QUOTE]Dr. Bruce Metzger doubts the Book of Genesis. He produced his bible version. How could you deny anyone doubt the Word of God? Look at him! [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]When did you get to be God?? How in the world can you this man's spiritual condition? And what difference does it make?? The work of textual criticism requires a knowlege of Greek and Hebrew and a knowledge of transmissional principles.

Besides, last I checked Metzger never produced a Bible version (false statement number 1 by you); Genesis in the Old Testament, not the new where Metzger did his work.

You yourself are condemned by this same standard because you doubt the word of God on the matter of bibliology. If you standard is the the standard, we would have to include you in the category with Metzger. I am unwilling to do that. You should be as well.

 

This was not the subject of the discussion. I know all about the "Anglican 39 Articles of Religion," and it has been referenced numerous times. I was not asking why the Apocrypha was in the AV, nor do I have a problem with its inclusion in the AV. As for reading "Tobit," I have read it numerous times, although I am partial to Bel and the Dragon. To partially quote verse 5: Because I may not worship idols made with hands, but the living God, who hath created the heaven and the earth, and hath sovereignty over all flesh.

With the post you quoted, I am referring to the common misconception that many KJVO's have that they are using the 1611 KJV. They are not.
I even listened to a shortwave program on WWCR (5.050 or 5.085 - cannot remember which frequency) called the "AV 1611 Hour" that had someone attacking anyone and everyone not using the "1611" King James Bible. As I listened to him, I followed along in my AV and it was obvious that he wasn't even using the Version of God's Holy Word he was espousing.