1 John 5v12

Both are sufficient, for the 1611 does nothing to dissuade or disprove the reading of 1769. That is one of the most interesting things I have see thus far, out of the 138 so "significant" revisions from 1611, none change or disprove anything, they just correct copyist error... as far as I have seen.

If you notice, contrary to popular belief and accusations (i.e., Rippon's last post), I am actually open to the debate. I stand by the KJV, but I am a rational man in the sense that, if I were ever to be proved wrong, I would do what I had to do, eat crow. The problem is, I am as thick-headed as proponents of the MV's are, but, and these is key, I am willing to change if the Lord shows me the need as I have always been.

 

Then we are in disagreement for the time being c4k. off to work.

 

I'm with you, Roger! It seems many folks are intolerant of the MVs due to differences in wording, but when it comes to differences in the various KJVs, that's a whole different story! "What is different is not the same" applies to the various KJVs just as much as it applies to the MVs.

 

C3k you really do not want to know

C4k If you truly believed this then you would have corrected Keith M.when he said about 1Tim 3:16

Keith M this was your reply about 1tim3:16

It sounds like Keith M is intolerant. Hey Keith cannot they both be right like you said about 1 Tim 3:16
Keith jumps on band wagons of circular reasoning. Forgive him
And C4k You did not take Keith to task Shame on you both.:tonofbricks:
Talk about motive.

EHUD & CO.

 

The first English translation of the bible to be "authorised" was The Great Bible
(1539). This authorisation was by King Henry VIII. Similarly, King James I of England (James VI of Scotland) was the king who authorised the AV/KJV. I got the impression (quite possibly wrong) that you believe it is called the "Authorised Version" because Almighty God Himself authorised it.

 

Keith Help

Why not ask Keith M. You did not seem to mind his answer BOTH.
Then again he might change his answer to who knows what. KEITH M, help c4k to the answer.:wavey:

Authorized Version, if I had to pick one it would be true to the character of God
it would be a version authorized by a king. God works through authority
1 Timothy 2:1-3 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;

EHUD & CO.
"IF YOU DON'T STAND FOR SOMETHING, YOU WILL FALL FOR EVERYTHING."

 

There is no such perfect rendering, that is translation, of any ancient foreign language text brought into English. It was only perfect as it left the Holy Spirit-directed pen the first time. Using our God-given abilities we may determine that the ancients texts that have been discovered are more or less certain in their fidelity to the inspired autographs.

 

Ehud, you are taking something I said completely out of context to make a false point. When I said both were right, I was talking about the English translations of two different texts. In that case, both English translations were correct in that they correctly translated their respective underlying Greek texts.

However, in this case we're not talking about English translations of two separate texts, but two differing English renderings of the same text. Since the two English renderings are from different KJVs and since they do not agree, one must be right and the other wrong. We're not talking about another situation where differing texts were rendered a little differently, but in this case the same text was rendered differently.

There is nothing in what I said to be ashamed of as you falsely claim, Ehud. If you can't see the difference in the two situations, then the fault is in your own ignorance and misunderstanding - not in anything I said.

Ehud, which rendering is correct? The 1611 or the 1769? Now don't forget we're talking about differing renderings of the same text here, not differing texts.

 

Decide yon burgermeister; is this "Son" the Son of God or dost thou recant with thy "Nay"?

Once upon a time there was this forest in which a man was hunting for clues to help him solve a dilemma that had overtaken him. Once he observed the symptoms which led to his dilemma, he couldn't find one iota resembling a clue due to the trees which made up the forest.:tonofbricks:

 

They're both perfect. One is simply more perfect than the other. :laugh:

 

So now we have perfect and more perfect than perfect??? Or is that perfect and perfecter?

:laugh: :tonofbricks:

 

Why would God go through the entire process of inerrant (some say inspired) translation only to allow the very first printing to contain errors. And it wasn't just the very first printing. It took over a hundred years to refine the KJV to what people accept now as "inerrant".

So then if only the translation process was inerrant (and not the printing), in what form is the KJV inerrant? The translators pre-printed KJV manuscript? That seems to be the only possible answer. But that raises another interesting question. Since the translators pre-printed KJV manuscript was lost or destroyed in the Great Fire of 1666 (it certainly was not available to printers after then), based on what authority did the printers make "corrections" after 1666? On other errant printings? At the printers discretion? Was God somehow involved in inerrant corrections to the KJV after 1666?

This is why people ask: What KJV edition is perfect? It's not a trick question. Some people honestly want to know what KJV is identified as perfect and how one comes to that conclusion with no evidence (either from scripture or not). If it's perplexing to us that don't agree with that position, then those that hold to it must have a clear answer.

Those that say we have no final authority since the original manuscripts are missing / destroyed (and we rely entirely on copies, not originals) can likewise apply their same judgment on their own belief, because the KJV manuscript is missing / destroyed as well (and all they have are various errant printings, not the original).

Anyway, I find this whole subject very interesting to study and understand various positions. I've always found the study of various religions and their history to be very exciting. The history of the religion of onlyism and the history of the KJV is equally interesting. I'm glad we have a place to discuss it in a civilized manner.

 

Maybe the 1769 was advanced, advanced revelation...