Will the Real KJV Please Stand Up!

[Scott J]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
By what means don't you know this?

The KJV. It records that Timothy and many others had the scriptures... more than 1500 years before the KJV was created.

I would also point to Luke 4:18 compared to Isaiah 61:1 in the KJV. Jesus read from a different version of Isaiah than the one used to translate the KJV. If multiple versions that communicate the same thing were OK for the Lord then they are OK for us.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Hey,Scott? Is the AV 1611 KJB Canon?

Yes, in every sense that the NASB is... and no, in every sense that the NASB is not.

 

[HankD]

Personally I believe some individuals here have crossed the line of human decency (much less Christian brotherly love) with the disgraceful insulting of one another. The rules of the BB have definitely been broken unless they have changed.

I think we all need to HEAR what God's Word says rather than defend it (as if God needs our help to do that).

How many self-appointed defenders today have disobeyed the Word of God the very Word they say they are defending?

2 Timothy 2
24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

 

[Precepts]

The KJV. It records that Timothy and many others had the scriptures... more than 1500 years before the KJV was created.

Uh, Scott, wait just a minute there. How did Timothy have the Scriptures when the Apostle Paul was still writing them?

I would also point to Luke 4:18 compared to Isaiah 61:1 in the KJV. Jesus read from a different version of Isaiah than the one used to translate the KJV. If multiple versions that communicate the same thing were OK for the Lord then they are OK for us.

I've never seen where Luke claimed to be quoting Jesus verbatum, kind of impossible wasn't it? Luke ever actually hear Jesus speak?

Your references are null and void.

 

[Precepts]

Uh, Hank? Did I just see you quote we are not to strive but I see you striving?

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Hey,Scott? Is the AV 1611 KJB Canon?

Yes, in every sense that the NASB is... and no, in every sense that the NASB is not. </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, that's where we'll just have to disagree. The AV 1611 KJB is Canon. I cannot say the same for the nas"v".

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Hey,Scott? Is the AV 1611 KJB Canon?

Yes, in every sense that the NASB is... and no, in every sense that the NASB is not. </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, that's where we'll just have to disagree. The AV 1611 KJB is Canon. I cannot say the same for the nas"v". </font>[/QUOTE]Could you point me to a document that recognizes the KJV 1611 as being in the canon. You do know the original 1511 version contained some of the apocrypha.

Just the facts please.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Bro. Tim L. Bynum:
Hey liberals and King James scoffers...Got
something for you:
Isaiah 5:20-Woe unto them that call evil good,
and good evil; that put darkness for light,and
light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet,
and sweet for bitter!

That`s what your doing with your NIV,ASV,
RSV,NASV,LIVING BIBLE,NEW LIVING BIBLE etc.

How about some facts to support your claim.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Bro. Tim L. Bynum:
King James Bible,(it`s not a version of the
bible,it is the BIBLE),is the only bible God has
perserved for the English speaking.I believe the
1611 is the one to read,preach and teach from.I
highly recommend the Cambridge TEXT ONLY.
All other versions ,NIV etc, are Satan`s attack on the final authority...They all remind me of the damsel in Acts 16:16-18 speaking some truth but
demon possessed all the time.
I`ve only been on the B.B. for a few days,but
every thing I`ve posted in defence of the Bible
this nation was founded on,(K.J.B.)I`ve been
attacked and railed upon by liberals and S.B.
until I`m ready to scream. If there is anybody
that still believes in the KJB with some zeal about you,
please contact me,because I`ve got my doubts
about the B.B.

In KJV what does the "V" stand for then?

Give us some facts.

"The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him."

If you can't hold up under a challenge or scrutiny then you don't have much substance.

 

[Precepts]

Could you point me to a document that recognizes the KJV 1611 as being in the canon. You do know the original 1511 version contained some of the apocrypha.

Just the facts please.

Mind getting your facts straight first? "1511"? You know quite well why the King James had the apocrypha in it. Yall just never seem to learn, just STRIVE!

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Could you point me to a document that recognizes the KJV 1611 as being in the canon. You do know the original 1511 version contained some of the apocrypha.

Just the facts please.

Mind getting your facts straight first? "1511"? You know quite well why the King James had the apocrypha in it. Yall just never seem to learn, just STRIVE! </font>[/QUOTE]Youmade the claim that the KJV was in the canon. So I asked where was that claim made. If what you claim is true then the apocrypha must have been in the canon was well too.

But I really don't know why the apocrypha was in the KJV. So inform me.

 

[Precepts]

For the same reason the [ASV] was paralelled with the KJB in 1878, to show the superiority of the AV 1611 KJB over the errors of the asv.

Other than the writings of Polycarp, the rest of the apocrypha is clearly allegory and not Truth.

Of course yall love to ride this hobby horse, but it doesn't go any further than the rockin' horse theologies of mv advocates.

[ February 07, 2004, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

[Charles Meadows]

Polycarps's writings are not in the apocrypha.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Mind getting your facts straight first? "1511"? You know quite well why the King James had the apocrypha in it. Yall just never seem to learn, just STRIVE!

qs, aka Deadening spirit, you know that was a typo. And you certainly aren't the best speller in the world so chill out.

 

[Orvie]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Of course yall love to ride this hobby horse, but it doesn't go any further than the rockin' horse theologies of mv advocates.

qs-Here's a hobby horse you ride and get nowhere: circular reasoning: The KJV is the only Word of God is the KJV is the only Word of God etc whoa Nellie! It's time to get on another horse! The ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV will carry you to a close encounter of the God kind. These are nice "horses" the KJV is the old tired worn out horse, that can still carry you where you wanna go. But why settle for a Chevette, when you can drive a Corvette of a MV I hope you kept up w/ the switching of anlalogies and metaphors

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Polycarps's writings are not in the apocrypha.

Is that the forgotten books of the Bible or the lost books of Eden? Both help comprise the apocrypha and the writings of Polycarp are there.

 

[Dr. Bob]

No, they aren't. Polycarp's writings (and quotations of his words) are found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers. While I might not agree with all he says, it is historical record.

Not apocrapha
Not pseudopigrapha

Suggest you do a google search if you can't get a copy of Schaff's 20-volume set.

 

[Craigbythesea]

QuickeningSpirit wrote,

Other than the writings of Polycarp, the rest of the apocrypha is clearly allegory and not Truth.

There are no writings of Polycarp in the KJV apocrypha and the apocryphal books found in the KJV are historical rather than allegorical. They are not part of the Protestant cannon because they are not deemed by most Protestants to be inspired, but they were included in first printings of the KJV and are still printed in many translations of the Bible because of their historical value.

The “Lost Books of the Bible” is a photographic reproduction of:

The Apocryphal New Testament, Being All The Gospels, Epistles, And Other Pieces Now Extant, Attributed In The First Four Centuries To Jesus Christ, His Apostles, And Their Companions And Not Included In The New Testament By Its Compilers. London: Printed for William Hone, Ludgate Hill. 1820.

Of course Collins World doesn’t tell you that in the preface to their book, The Lost Books of the Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, because they want to fool you into believing that their book is something that it is not. I just happen to know this information because I have a first edition of the book that I cited above. Moral of the story: you simply can’t believe what you read these days until you check it out for yourself.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I forgot to mention in my last post that the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians is included in the book that I cited above that was printed in 1820.

 

[Precepts]

Well, that almost clears something up for me but I had the books and they contained Polycarp's writings along with a lot of other stuff: Book of Enoch, I & II Macabees, etc. I don't remember the rest. They were given to me by my mother-in-law. I either threw them away or intentionally lost them.

So how often do you and Dr. Bob refer to the writings of Jocephus?