Bible Question.

Both


Which one is correct?

Acts 8:37 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.

or







Which one is perfect?

 

Ah, 1 John 5:12!
IMHO both together are more correct than either by itself.

I consider the following Axiomatic:

All Real Bibles I recommend as 100%
God's word, INERRANT and infallible.
Any difficulty I have within one of them or
between two of them - I believe to be
my misunderstanding - NOT GOD'S FAULT.

From which directly & logically I can say:
I believe that the version/translation
Forum of the BB (Baptist Board) is a place where reasonable
human beings can discuss what our Bible
problems might be
with out the sheepish bleating of "one-and-only-one Bible".

Contrast with the Baa Baa Axion (BBA):

God is incapable of preserving
His Inerrant word in more than one right
Bible in English.

And it's Baa Baa Conclusion (BBC):

God's people are incapable of understanding God's
other Bibles in English.

 

tsk, tsk, tsk... lol... you got pulled in..

But good question...

 

Does your faith in God depend upon a complete, inerrant word of God?

If so, your faith is weak...
The first century church didn't have a complete word of God, and God blessed them...

 

Hard to argue with that...

 

The one that was in the original...
Which one? Since we don't have the originals, we will have to guess.

Is it wrong to add the verse if it wasn't in the originals?
of course...

 

I am sorry, but I am still looking for which KJV edition, publication, and printing is 100% perfect.

 

All of them. You account for the differences by calling the differences "advanced revelation". No, I don't agree, and I'm not trying to be a smart-xxx. That's just the argument I've seen used.

 

One has to wonder what ever happened to "Things that are different are not the same" when it comes down to the various KJV editions.

 

Maybe they never watched Sesame Street.

(singing) "One of these things is not like the other; one of these things is never the same..."

 

That only applies to the modern versions, Snitzelhoff! All differences in the various KJVs are overlooked as not being different at all. Some folks preach "What is different is not the same" while they practice "What is different IS the same." There's that double standard thing again...

 

Here's the link to a site by one Matthew Verschuur of Australia who believes the 1900 cambridge Edition is the pure, unadulterated KJV edition.

http://www.bibleprotector.com/

I'm having a somewhat argumentative discussion with him on another board, because to me he hasta prove KJVO is valid first before he hoes into any sub-doctrine about it. He's failed miserably to do that. Also, I believe his reasoning is three fries short of a Happy Meal, but judge for yourselves, sports fanzz!

Here's another view favoring the 1769 Edition:

http://www.thebelieversorganization.org/article - Beware of Counterfeit Bibles.htm

I certainly don't go along with THIS dude's view! But again, judge for yourselves.

 

Either the 1769 added to God's word or the 1611 took away from it. Simple question. Which is it?

This thread will be closed at the end of page 5 if we can be cordial that long.

 

Read the post again and you shouldn't have any problem understanding what it says. That is, as long as you seriously want to understand what was said. if you want to put words in my mouth then you can read into it anything you want. I said what I meant, and I meant what I said.

Then maybe you need to go back and read some of the discussion topics in this forum section. Every English Bible version that has ever been translated has errors - that is something that happens when one language is being translated into another. On the other hand, all legitimate English Bible versions are inerrant in that they convey to us the message God wants us to have, and that includes the plan of salvation. Not one MV I have read gives us an alternate plan of salvation. If you read some of the previous discussions you will see some of the errors that appear in the various KJVs. You have probably been shown these errors before, but you just don't want to see the errors so you say you have never been shown any errors. Just for the record and so that you cannot truthfully say you have not been shown any errors, there is the one Roger mentioned before - I believe it was 1 John 5:12 being rendered differently in various KJVs. There is also the erroneous translation of the original pascha as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 while the word is more correctly translated as "Passover" in all its other KJV appearances.

 

Now that's a smoke screen if I ever saw one. The post says absolutely nothing about the question, but the writer certainly wants to divert attention in a futile attempt to disguise his/her uncertainty. Sorry, Blammo, your post says nothing at all!

 

I have looked over them and haven't found any that held water. For one, I know the argument about the varying KJV's and I wasn't asking about that. I should have been more specific, I wanted contradictions within the text. To be quite honest, I do not know a whole lot about the varying KJV differences. I assume I use the 1789 version. My question, to be more direct, is what errors are within the KJV that contradict it's text against itself. Quite frankly, that Easter thing is old and over used. I can't believe that is a mistranslation for a moment and personally believe the argument for it is stronger than against it. Give me something not so old and worn out.

 

1 Corinthians 4:10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.

see also I Cor. 8 concerning the weaker brother. Although this is concerning meat, the principle of the weaker brother is obvious.

 

Will you answer my question above please Bro Williams?

Which KJV erred in adding to or taking away from the word of God?









Sidenote to self: Stay out of these threads in the future. You only get frustrated.

 

As I said before: To be quite honest, I do not know a whole lot about the varying KJV differences (in regards to the years and changes). I assume I use the 1789 version is what I have used and continue to use. I have tried to find out why the portion is different in 1611 and 1769 and thus far have found no answer. Would someone elaborate why it was added in 1769?

 

There's an article I thought was amusing. It compares what Jesus said in the KJV to the passage he quotes as printed in the KJV.

http://www.kjv-only.com/jesusnotkjvonly.html

Isaiah 61:1-2a as the KJV tells us Jesus read it

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Isaiah 61:1-2a as it appears in the KJV

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD

Obviously, Jesus was not reading from the KJV, or he would have gotten this passage right.

Another amusing bit of trivia is that there was an edition of the KJV with a misprint, such that it said, "Thou shalt commit adultery".