What I post I wrote.

[Winman]

I wouldn't use that word myself winman.

He has a passion for accuracy. He is of the school and mind frame (IMO) of the Church of England translation committee.

The history of refinement by the Church of England to thoroughly refine the text of the AD1611 First Edition IMO is a credit for which they are long overdue in spite of our differences as Baptists.

They have given us one of (if not THE) best and accurate translations of the Traditional Texts (Greek and Hebrew) of the bible because of their meticulous work.

Yes, the English is "behind the times" but an NKJV and a good dictionary with historic words solves that problem.

HankD

Hank, that was only HALF of the list

There was a KJV-only web site that took the very extreme position of claiming that some present-day KJV editions were “counterfeit” that printed “to day” as one word “today” or “to-day,” that printed “twoedged” as “two-edged” or “two edged.” and that updated the spelling of a few words.

Psalm 149:6 [two edged--1560 Geneva, 1602 Bishops] [see also Job 41:30]
two-edged (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783, 1788 Oxford) [1637, 1638, 1677, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1773, 1778, 1817, 1822, 1824, 2005, 2011 Cambridge, CSTE] {1644, 1660, 1672, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1772, 1795, 1860, 1877, 1879 London} (1755 Oxon) (1722, 1735, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1810, 1820, 1842, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1791, 1816 Collins) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1813, 1815 Carey) (1808, 1828 MH) (1809, 1818, 1826, 1828 Boston) (1814, 1832, 1835 Scott) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (Clarke) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1843, 1851, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1827 Smith) (1831 Brown) (1832 PSE) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1854, 1876 Harding) (1856 AFBS) (1859 RTS) (1876 Porter) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1948 WSE) (1958 NPC) (1966 SC) (1968 Royal) (1973 REG) (GPB) (1975 CBP) (1975 Open) (1975 GID) (CSB) (RRB) (WMCRB) (1984, 1991 AMG) (1987, 2001 TN) (1991, 2012 FWP) (1987 Dugan) (TLPSB) (EB) (JVIPB) (DSB) (2004 World) (2006 PENG) (2008 Pilot) (APB) (2011 PJB) (2012 F-S) (HKJVSB) (NCE) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard) [NKJV]
two edged (1769, 1784, 1787, 1795e, 1799, 1800, 1803, 1804, 1810, 1812, 1819 Oxford) [1629, 1769, 1790, 1795, 1800, 1833, 1837 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1684, 1813, 1817, 1824, 1825, 1827 London} (1638 Edinburgh) (1791 Thomas) (1803 Etheridge) (1810 Boston) (1815 Walpole) (1836 Hartford) (1843 AFBS)
twoedged (1821 Oxford, SRB) [DKJB]

Revelation 1:16 [two edged--1560 Geneva, 1602 Bishops]
two edged (1769, 1787, 1795, 1795e, 1803, 1804, 1810, 1812, 1819 Oxford) [1778, 1800 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1672, 1684, 1813, 1814, 1825, 1834 London} (1791 Thomas) (1803 Etheridge) (1810 Boston) (1815 Walpole) (1835 Scott) (1836 Hartford) (1843 AFBS) (KJRLB) (E-R)
two-edged (1675, 1709, 1715, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783, 1784, 1788, 1791, 1800 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1817, 1822, 1824, 2005, 2011 Cambridge, CSTE] {1660, 1735, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1772, 1795, 1860, 1879 London} (1638, 1722, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1810, 1820, 1842, 1858 Edinburgh) (1866 Glasgow) (1700 MP) (1770 Dodd) (1782 Aitken) (1791, 1816 Collins) (1801 Hopkins) (1807 Johnson) (1813 Carey) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1818, 1828 Boston) (1818, 1819, 1829, 1843, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1827 Smith) (1831 Brown) (1832 PSE) (1846 Portland) (1854, 1876 Harding) (1856 AFBS) (1876 Porter) (1910 Collins) (1911 TCE) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1948 WSE) (1968 Royal) (1973 REG) (GPB) (1975 Open) (CSB) (RRB) (WMCRB) (LASB) (1984, 1991 AMG) (1991, 2012 FWP) (EB) (2006 PENG) (NCE) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard) (1851 Cone) [NKJV]
twoedged (1828 Oxford, SRB) [1790, 1833, 1869, 1873 Cambridge, DKJB]

I'm sorry, I think OBSESSION is exactly the right word to use.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Hank, that was only HALF of the list



I'm sorry, I think OBSESSION is exactly the right word to use.

And you're OBSESSED with KJVO, if you weren't you would ignore us.:null::smilewinkgrin:

 

[InTheLight]

This is a bit of a tough question to answer. I think it was a number of things, first off, that helped me get to where I would consider the possibility that I was wrong.

I began to get a little frustrated with the church I grew up in....

<snip rest for brevity>

This is almost my EXACT experience. Great post.

 

[Winman]

And you're OBSESSED with KJVO, if you weren't you would ignore us.:null::smilewinkgrin:

I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting even YOU believe that. :laugh:

 

[annsni]

Again, so what? Why do you care what they believe?

They might be Democrats too!

I care about those in our church who believe in false beliefs. They prefer the KJV? That's awesome!! Even feel that the manuscript evidence is stronger for it? Peachy!! But to denigrate the Word of God? Nope, not gonna happen. Heck, we have a hard enough as Christian teachers to get our congregations to even READ the Bible and OBEY it - now we tell them that the Bible is corrupt? Fugghetaboutit!

 

[Mexdeaf]

I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting even YOU believe that. :laugh:

I would be the first to admit that I don't have much intelligence to insult.

I do, however, have enough to know how to spot false doctrine.

 

[Winman]

I care about those in our church who believe in false beliefs. They prefer the KJV? That's awesome!! Even feel that the manuscript evidence is stronger for it? Peachy!! But to denigrate the Word of God? Nope, not gonna happen. Heck, we have a hard enough as Christian teachers to get our congregations to even READ the Bible and OBEY it - now we tell them that the Bible is corrupt? Fugghetaboutit!

They DO prefer the King James, so what's the problem?

As far as those who do not read the other versions, perhaps there is a reason why??

I am always amazed that only the King James Bible can inspire such dedication. I suppose there might be some NIV onlies, or ESV onlies, but it it so extremely rare as to be almost nonexistant.

But literally millions are inspired by the KJB to believe it is the only word of God in English.

How do you explain that?

 

[annsni]

They DO prefer the King James, so what's the problem?

NO problem with that.

As far as those who do not read the other versions, perhaps there is a reason why??

Because they believe untruths?

I am always amazed that only the King James Bible can inspire such dedication. I suppose there might be some NIV onlies, or ESV onlies, but it it so extremely rare as to be almost nonexistant.

That's because "onlies" believe in untruths. When you understand the facts of the matter, you don't mind a KJV, NIV, NASB or ESV. Personally, I use mainly the ESV. It's my paper Bible that I carry, it's my default in all of my software. But I will use the KJV oftentimes to respond to a post with a KJV person to use their 'language' and I love the NASB for personal study as well. I am with the KJV translators and believe in a multiplicity of good Bibles.

But literally millions are inspired by the KJB to believe it is the only word of God in English.

How do you explain that?

Literally there are millions of Muslims. How do you explain that?

 

[Winman]

NO problem with that.

But you DO have a problem with it.

Because they believe untruths?

They do not believe it is an untruth

That's because "onlies" believe in untruths. When you understand the facts of the matter, you don't mind a KJV, NIV, NASB or ESV. Personally, I use mainly the ESV. It's my paper Bible that I carry, it's my default in all of my software. But I will use the KJV oftentimes to respond to a post with a KJV person to use their 'language' and I love the NASB for personal study as well. I am with the KJV translators and believe in a multiplicity of good Bibles.

That is your opinion. Most KJVO have looked seriously at the evidence and came to the conclusion that the KJB is the only accurate word of God in English.

Literally there are millions of Muslims. How do you explain that?

There is a HUGE difference between Muslims and born again Christians indwelled by the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised would guide a believer into all truth.

Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide believers into truth. You have literally millions of Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit that sincerely believe the KJB is the only accurate word of God in English. None of the other versions can claim such a following.

Google NIV only churches and see what you find, or ESV, or NASB. You will find ZILCH.

But Google KJB only churches and you will find literally thousands of churches.

http://fundamental.org/fundamental/...ncountry&countryname=United States of America

The thing is, these lists are only partial. I looked at some of the lists and personally know of MANY KJB only churches that are not listed here.

There is a reason so many Christians are devoted to the King James, but not devoted to any other version.

You can choose to ignore the obvious if you wish.

 

[annsni]

But you DO have a problem with it.

Oh? You know my heart? Interesting. I joined a church in '96 where the pastor was KJVP. He grew up with the KJV, memorized with it and while he'd sometimes use another version if it phrased the Scriptures he was using better, primarily he used the KJV. It wasn't until a few years ago that he decided to use the NIV in the pulpit but I've noticed he's back to using the KJV for now. I think that's great! If I had a problem with someone preferring the KJV, I think I'd know it - but I don't.

They do not believe it is an untruth

Yep, they don't. So I have been able to give them TRUE information and not the lies that they were fed. I've shown them the "missing verses" in all of my other versions, I've shown them the facts of where the KJV differs from the MT in many places (because they were stating that the KJV is exactly like the MT, which we know for a fact it is not - and they were standing on the MT being the only good text to use - oh and they didn't even realize that it's text"s" and not text. ) and other things to show them that their assertions are just not factual.

That is your opinion. Most KJVO have looked seriously at the evidence and came to the conclusion that the KJB is the only accurate word of God in English.

Actually, they haven't. Almost every KJVO that I have encountered has looked at propoganda and not reality. Those that HAVE looked at the evidence have quickly left the "only" camp although some still prefer the KJV.

There is a HUGE difference between Muslims and born again Christians indwelled by the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised would guide a believer into all truth.

Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide believers into truth. You have literally millions of Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit that sincerely believe the KJB is the only accurate word of God in English. None of the other versions can claim such a following.

Google NIV only churches and see what you find, or ESV, or NASB. You will find ZILCH.

But Google KJB only churches and you will find literally thousands of churches.

http://fundamental.org/fundamental/...ncountry&countryname=United States of America

The thing is, these lists are only partial. I looked at some of the lists and personally know of MANY KJB only churches that are not listed here.

There is a reason so many Christians are devoted to the King James, but not devoted to any other version.

You can choose to ignore the obvious if you wish.

There are many sincere believers who believe you can lose your salvation (as we see on this board). There are many sincere believers who believe in infant baptism. Just because one is a "sincere believer" doesn't mean they won't be in error. Yes, many are devoted to the KJV because culturally it is what they grew up with and they love it (as my pastor is). But many are devoted to it because lies they have been taught.

I don't ignore anything. I will not set foot in a KJVO church because they teach a false doctrine - some going as far as saying the KJV Bible is God! Yeah - I do not ignore heresy.

 

[Logos1560]

KJV-only opposition to the facts concerning the KJV

You know, one of the greatest arguments for King James only is the great number of people who hate the King James.

KJV-only advocates seem desperate to accuse falsely any believer that disagrees with a modern, man-made KJV-only theory.

Providing accurate information about the English translation [the KJV] that I mainly use does not indicate any hatred for that translation. I am advocating the same basic view of Bible translations as that held by the KJV translators themselves.

Evidently, KJV-only advocates are opposed to knowing the truth about the making of the KJV and about the printing of the KJV. They seem to oppose the presenting of the truth about the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and the KJV. They want to ignore the facts in order to cling to their subjective opinions.

Because of the lack of accurate information about the KJV and all the differences in various editions, there are a number of present KJV editions that have new undetected errors that were likely unintentionally introduced into them.

Over 12 editions of the KJV printed from around the 1980's unto today have a new set of variations and errors, likely introduced from the KJV text being printed from a computer file. Other recent KJV editions including some edited and printed by KJV-only groups have a good number of differences and even some new errors.

 

[Winman]

Oh? You know my heart? Interesting. I joined a church in '96 where the pastor was KJVP. He grew up with the KJV, memorized with it and while he'd sometimes use another version if it phrased the Scriptures he was using better, primarily he used the KJV. It wasn't until a few years ago that he decided to use the NIV in the pulpit but I've noticed he's back to using the KJV for now. I think that's great! If I had a problem with someone preferring the KJV, I think I'd know it - but I don't.

Why is it even your business what these friends of yours believe? If they want to believe in KJB only, how is that hurting Christianity? It's not like they are supporting the New World Translation or the Book of Mormon, you yourself say it is the word of God. So, I think you do have a problem with the KJB, although you will not admit it.

Yep, they don't. So I have been able to give them TRUE information and not the lies that they were fed. I've shown them the "missing verses" in all of my other versions, I've shown them the facts of where the KJV differs from the MT in many places (because they were stating that the KJV is exactly like the MT, which we know for a fact it is not - and they were standing on the MT being the only good text to use - oh and they didn't even realize that it's text"s" and not text. ) and other things to show them that their assertions are just not factual.

Look, the word of God cannot both contain and omit the last 12 verses of the 16th chapter of Mark. If you believe that, then you do not have a logical mind. They cannot both be the preserved word of God, either one, or both are error, but it is impossible both are the preserved word of God.

You can insist both are the preserved word of God, and you just make a fool of yourself, that is logically impossible.

Actually, they haven't. Almost every KJVO that I have encountered has looked at propoganda and not reality. Those that HAVE looked at the evidence have quickly left the "only" camp although some still prefer the KJV.

You call it propaganda, they believe the information they have studied is true.

There are many sincere believers who believe you can lose your salvation (as we see on this board). There are many sincere believers who believe in infant baptism. Just because one is a "sincere believer" doesn't mean they won't be in error. Yes, many are devoted to the KJV because culturally it is what they grew up with and they love it (as my pastor is). But many are devoted to it because lies they have been taught.

I don't ignore anything. I will not set foot in a KJVO church because they teach a false doctrine - some going as far as saying the KJV Bible is God! Yeah - I do not ignore heresy.

Actually, if a person reads the scriptures without bias, they must admit there are MANY verses that seem to suggest a person can lose their salvation. I do not personally believe you can lose your salvation, but I can understand these person's point of view. There are MANY scriptures that do appear to suggest this.

Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

I do not believe this verse is teaching you can lose salvation, but I can easily understand how some sincere and honest Christians could interpret this verse to teach that. Why should a believer fear? Yet, that is what these verses say.

Now, infant baptism is clearly different, Acts 8:37 says only a person who believes can be baptized.

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 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.

This verse makes it clear that you must KNOWINGLY believe on Jesus to be baptized. A newborn baby cannot possibly know this. So, this is very different from those who believe you can lose salvation.

But truth is, many millions of born again Christians believe the KJB is the only accurate word of God in English. No other version has this devoted a following. There is a reason for this.

 

[Logos1560]

They cannot both be the preserved word of God, either one, or both are error, but it is impossible both are the preserved word of God.

You can insist both are the preserved word of God, and you just make a fool of yourself, that is logically impossible.

Are you asserting that the Byzantine Greek New Testament manuscripts and the KJV cannot both be the word of God since there are some textual differences between them?

The KJV has readings that Erasmus added by translating from the Latin Vulgate that were not found in the Greek NT manuscripts that he had available. The Greek NT manuscripts used by Erasmus had words, phrases, and verses missing, and Erasmus wrote in a number of corrections in them.

The KJV even has readings that were conjectures by textual editors of the Textus Receptus editions [such as Erasmus or Beza] that are not found in the Greek NT manuscripts.

Are you implying that KJV-only advocates are arguing for what is "logically impossible" when they in effect advocate a very inconsistent view of the preservation of the Scriptures?

 

[annsni]

Why is it even your business what these friends of yours believe? If they want to believe in KJB only, how is that hurting Christianity? It's not like they are supporting the New World Translation or the Book of Mormon, you yourself say it is the word of God. So, I think you do have a problem with the KJB, although you will not admit it.

You just don't get it. When they disparage the Bible that I use, that many other people use and tell lies, then it's a problem.

Look, the word of God cannot both contain and omit the last 12 verses of the 16th chapter of Mark. If you believe that, then you do not have a logical mind. They cannot both be the preserved word of God, either one, or both are error, but it is impossible both are the preserved word of God.

You can insist both are the preserved word of God, and you just make a fool of yourself, that is logically impossible.

So let's be honest and put it in - but notate that there is question about it's heritage.

You call it propaganda, they believe the information they have studied is true.

Yep - they do believe that which they have been told is true. Have they studied it? No. Not beyond KJVO advocates.

Actually, if a person reads the scriptures without bias, they must admit there are MANY verses that seem to suggest a person can lose their salvation. I do not personally believe you can lose your salvation, but I can understand these person's point of view. There are MANY scriptures that do appear to suggest this.

Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

I do not believe this verse is teaching you can lose salvation, but I can easily understand how some sincere and honest Christians could interpret this verse to teach that. Why should a believer fear? Yet, that is what these verses say.

Now, infant baptism is clearly different, Acts 8:37 says only a person who believes can be baptized.

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 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.

This verse makes it clear that you must KNOWINGLY believe on Jesus to be baptized. A newborn baby cannot possibly know this. So, this is very different from those who believe you can lose salvation.

But truth is, many millions of born again Christians believe the KJB is the only accurate word of God in English. No other version has this devoted a following. There is a reason for this.

Yet "households" were baptized and that would include babies so babies can be baptized too. :type:

Yes, millions of born again Christians believe the lie that the KJV is the only accurate word of God in English - because they have not studied the truth. Interestingly enough, there are no true Biblical scholars who believe your statement. That screams volumes to me. Those who know Bible accuracy do not stand behind the KJVO stance. There is a reason for this.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Here we go round...