Why is the King James Version not the Perfect Word of God?

As for the Good sense part..... Thou saith

 

HankD said:

mioque, "mere translation" is the offensive phrase for most radical KJVO.

Yeah, in all fairness, the KJV is probably just as good as any other translation.

 

The Philadelphia Church "kept" the word of God, while Laodecia needs "eyesalve" -the word- to see.

The "Philadelphia Church Age": the "good old days," whatever the speaker happens to think they are.

The "Laodicean Church Age": Today, whenever that happens to be.

 

Benaiah,

If you are so in love with the language of the KJV, why aren't you speaking and writing that way all the time?

Me thinks thou protesteth to much.

 

President Reagan once spoke on this issue. He stated that we would not dare dream of changing the beautiful literary works of William Shakespeare or Charles Dickens, why then should we change the Word of God?

 

Doesn't it seem like the KJVO's place a translation above what the KJV translators did--a translation.

 

President Reagan once spoke on this issue.

President Reagan commits a categorical error by confusing Shakespeare (English literature read in its native tongue) with the Bible (Hebrew and Greek literature read in translation).

 

Have you never heard of the Church ages?

Oh I forgot if you don't use the KJV you proably can't rightly divide either

 

Besides they seem to ignore what the translators said about the positive effects of having multiple translations.

I guess we'll just have to admit that the translators were inspired. But, they must not have been paying attention when they translated the apocrypha.

 

Have you never heard of the Church ages?

Oh I forgot if you don't use the KJV you proably can't rightly divide either </font>[/QUOTE]Do you have any Biblical evidence that divides where each church period changed, or is that your conjecture?

This thread is discussing the perfection or imperfection of the KJV, can we leave the MVs out of this thread please?

 

"there has been no revival in this country since the new versions have come out."
"
There have been no revivals in the US since 1884?
I thought my country had it bad.

 

No, I don't "saith" because you said it first.

But OK then, go on down to your local Mormon stake and get a good dose of their "good sense" since it seems that you prefer to insult your brethren and praise the cults.

HankD

 

Benaiah: [/i]Have you never heard of the Church ages?[/i]

Yes...It's a false doctrine started by John Darby(1800-1882) in the British Isles, and pushed in America by a charlatan, William Branham(1909-1965). I'll be happy to discuss it with you and prove how silly it is in another thread.

Oh I forgot if you don't use the KJV you proably can't rightly divide either

Scripture, please?????

 

Benaiah: Well at least the cults have the good sense to use the right Bible. You see Satan wouldn't attack an imitation.

What's the "most attacked" bible on earth right now? The NIV, of course.

Why is the ability of the KJV questioned when the Modern versions are the book of choice for the big name evangelists and radio preachers of the day,are promoted by Bible book stores all over the country and are quickly replacing the KJV on calendars, cards, etc. You have to let the Lion out of the cage for it to be effective.

The British people had NO CHOICE but to obtain an AV or be without a Bible when the British govt. forbade any printing or sale of any other BV but the AV, when the "peoples' choice" was the GENEVA BIBLE. Today, we have a choice. In this general time of the end, God is making His word much more available, as part of His prophesied vast increase in knowledge and travel.

 

Roby;
OTOH; The supposed increase of knowledge and travel to which you refer has to do with secular knowledge, but when speaking of the words of God you need to look at Amos 8. God said He will send a famine...which would mean that folks are so confused over the vast numbers of books claiming to be a Bible that they really have no Bible at all.
Interpretations abound huh?

OK. Back to the point of this thread.

La dee da!
In HIS service;
Jim

(For they who want to wax all eloquent; this was offered in fun.)

 

Benaiah asked:

Have you never heard of the Church ages?

Yes. They are nonsense from the fringes of Dispensationalism, and even the Dispensationalists cannot agree on when the lines between them are, except, as I said, that the Laodicean age is always today, and the Philadelphian age is always some golden era that was much better than today.

Oh I forgot if you don't use the KJV you proably can't rightly divide either.

The KJV translators did not believe in "church ages." They were, for the most part, amillennialists.

 

Aren't Baptists free to take whatever stance they want???

Then stop arguing about this stuff, and "have it unto thyself!"

 

Lookey here! ANOTHER voice of reason and grace.
Thank you brother.
(I mean that sincerely)

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Not if you are a Calvinist. Just so happens that quite a number of Calvinists are predestined to be wrong.