Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Wow, an actual answer.
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!
verses that prove preservation
- Thread starter tinytim
- Start date
Thanks, and no: you are not using the King James Version.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Wow, an actual answer.
Thanks, and no: you are not using the King James Version. </font>[/QUOTE]No plm with 1611 or 1769 KJV.
</font>[/QUOTE]Do the math, Askjo.......Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
You are NOT using the KJV. You utilize the 1769 Revision.
I cannot believe you wrote this. There are not any "doctrines affected" by the NIV, ESV, and RSV for that matter.
That shoots a hole in 1769-Revision-onlyism, doesn't it?
timothy 1769
New Member
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).
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).
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:
http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/revision.htm
Terry_Herrington
New Member
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.
I am not KJVO. I prefer the KJV and feel comfortable using it as my primary translation. I may read the NIV, the NASB, or even the NLT (I especially like using the NLT for casual reading). But if someone tells me to bring my bible, I bring my KJV.
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 someone over these semantics is childish.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Terry:
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. If you have a TRUE King James Version, you should have more than 66 Books.
As for "semantics" one should ensure that if they claim that the 1611 KJV is the only Word of God, they should actually be using the 1611 KJV.
By the way, if you are going to make a juvenile attempt to insult me with personal jabs, perhaps you should check for errors in spelling prior to clicking the "Add Reply" button.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
Baptist Believer:
Rest assured that I was not attempting to insult you. I was only pointing out to you that the 1769 Revision, as you call it, is referred to as the KJV bible. I challenge you to walk into any Christian bookstore and ask for a 1769 Revision bible and see what the clerk gives you. I understand that the KJV was revised in 1769.
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."
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.
As far as my spelling error is concerned, I am sure that you have never made such a mistake. 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.
Rest assured that I was not attempting to insult you. I was only pointing out to you that the 1769 Revision, as you call it, is referred to as the KJV bible. I challenge you to walk into any Christian bookstore and ask for a 1769 Revision bible and see what the clerk gives you. I understand that the KJV was revised in 1769.
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."
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.
As far as my spelling error is concerned, I am sure that you have never made such a mistake. 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.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
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.
I suppose that this statment is also for my edification.....
Terry_Herrington
New Member
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.
I guess since I said "childish" and you said "juvenile" we are even.
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.
I guess since I said "childish" and you said "juvenile" we are even.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
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.
My whole intent is to prove that the 1769 Revision is NOT the King James Version, which is a common misconception. There is a HUGE difference, and the two terms are not synonymous.
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.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Sorry, Timothy: I didn't see your reply.
The "mountain" was created by the KJVO camp when the claim was made that they ONLY use the "1611 King James Bible" and dismiss all other Translations of God's Holy Word. This, of course is completely untrue.
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...
You need to answer this question since you have presumed to put words in God's mouth. If God made such a promise then I want to see it.
