Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Wow, an actual answer.Originally posted by Askjo:
I use the 1769 KJV.
Thanks, and no: you are not using the King James Version.
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!
Wow, an actual answer.Originally posted by Askjo:
I use the 1769 KJV.
Wow, an actual answer.Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
I use the 1769 KJV.
Wow, an actual answer.Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
I use the 1769 KJV.
Are there any doctrines affected by the KJV?Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Do the math, Askjo.......
You are NOT using the KJV. You utilize the 1769 Revision.Originally posted by Askjo:
Are there any doctrines affected by the KJV?
Scrivener, in 1884, produced such a list in a book. The book is fairly hard to come by, but here are some details from/about it:Originally posted by timothy 1769:
Does anyone a list of all changes made between the second or third printing of the 1611 translation (to eliminate most honest printer's errors) and the 1769 edition, ignoring all spelling changes?
If so, I'd love to see it. We could actually deal with the issue, instead of trying to make a mountain out of a molehill (or out of nothing at all).
1611 & 1769 KJV did not affect any doctrines, however I agree with Tomothy 1769 - what he said.Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
There are not any "doctrines affected" by the NIV, ESV, and RSV for that matter.
God promised that the KJV would be the "accurate" manifestation of the preservation of His Word. </font>[/QUOTE]Where?Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Then why do KJVO's persistently presume to add to God's promises? God never promised that the KJV would be the "perfect" manifestation of the preservation of His Word.
I did not mean that there was a specific instance of this occurring. It just seems like no one is willing to allow this brother to hold to his personal convictions.Please provide any post where someone stated that they would not be happy until Homebound "renounced" the belief in the 1769 Revision.
Terry:Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
BTW, it is silly to constantly refer to the KJV bible as the 1769 Revision. Go into any Christian bookstore and ask for a KJV and they know what you are talking about. To constantly bagger[sic] someone over these semantics is childish.
God promised that the KJV would be the "accurate" manifestation of the preservation of His Word. </font>[/QUOTE]Where? </font>[/QUOTE]Still waiting Askjo...Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Then why do KJVO's persistently presume to add to God's promises? God never promised that the KJV would be the "perfect" manifestation of the preservation of His Word.
Perhaps you should re-read your post. What exactly did you intend to do by calling me "childish" in the first post, and "juvenile" in this one to which I am replying? Was that for my edification? I suppose that it is okay for you to make statements like these, but nobody can respond in similar fashion.Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
You also said:
"The TRUE King James Version is the 1611 Authorised Version, not the 1769 Revision. Anyone who has a true KJV knows this, and it would appear by your comments that you do not."
[emphasis is yours, by the way]
This insulting comment was unnecessary and juvenile on your part. I cannot remember anytime in the past where I have said anything to you that would cause you to respond in this fashion.
I suppose that this statment is also for my edification.....Rest assured I will do my best to catch any such mistakes in the future. Maybe some day I will be as perfect as you are.
Actually, I use the true King James Version, the 1611 Authorised Version. Once I obtained a copy of the 1611 AV I gave away my 1769 Revision as I believe it to be subjacent.Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
[QB] Baptist in Richmond, I tell you what, I will keep reading my AV1611 bible, and you can continue to use your 1769 Revision version.
My whole intent was to show that what you call the 1769 Revision is commonly called the AV1611 or the KJV bible. Sometimes it is called the KJV1611 version.
A point worth noting is that I described your "attempt" as juvenile. I never applied that term to you personally. That was not coincidental.....I guess since I said "childish" and you said "juvenile" we are even.![]()
Sorry, Timothy: I didn't see your reply.Originally posted by timothy 1769:
We could actually deal with the issue, instead of trying to make a mountain out of a molehill (or out of nothing at all).
God promised that the KJV would be the "accurate" manifestation of the preservation of His Word. </font>[/QUOTE]Where? </font>[/QUOTE]Still waiting Askjo... </font>[/QUOTE]And.... still waiting Askjo...Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Then why do KJVO's persistently presume to add to God's promises? God never promised that the KJV would be the "perfect" manifestation of the preservation of His Word.
If Psalms 12:6-7 do not refer to the preservation of God's word (referring to the Hebrew/Greek MSS), then the KJV would not be here.Originally posted by Scott J:
Still waiting Askjo...
Can anyone name the logical fallacy here?Originally posted by Askjo:
If Psalms 12:6-7 do not refer to the preservation of God's word (referring to the Hebrew/Greek MSS), then the KJV would not be here.