Final Authority before 1611?

--------------------------------------------------
We've PROVEN several errors, which you simply refuse to believe the PROOF of, and the KJV is in YESTERDAY'S language. Still valid, of course, but frozen in time,as all other works of men are.
--------------------------------------------------

You have proven nothing but your stubborness to the truth. You cannot disprove the truth. Your feeble attempts to do so, are only exposing your own error, opinion and doubt.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle said "Wrong. The TR vs. the W/H texts has been going on since the 1800's."

The existence of these texts, and the issues surrounding them, are not the same thing as KJV-onlyism.

Michelle said "Wrong. Abundant scriptural support has been not only given, but supports the fact that the faithful will always have God's pure words."

Yes, there are lots of scriptural support for preservation, but none for KJV-onlyism. God could have perfectly preserved his word in any other version, e.g. the Geneva, and those scriptures would still be true. The KJV does not need to be perfect for those passages to be true, therefore there is no scriptural support for KJV-onlyism.

Michelle said "I read in the KJB exactly what Jesus said."

Maybe you miss the point. What Jesus read from Isaiah, and called scripture, does not match the KJV's rendering of Isaiah. They are different.

Michelle said "The KJB is the word of God perfectly in the English language. Several others are not, as it has been EVIDENCED they fall short of perfection because they alter/change/omitt/add the words of God."

Circular argument.

Michelle said "The NIV does deny the deity of Christ in many verses"

False witness. You do not understand the meaning of "deny".

Michelle said "You are limiting God and his power"

No, you are. You are saying God is limited to one version. You are saying God is powerless and unable to preserve his word in more than one version. We do not believe God is this powerless and limited.

 

--------------------------------------------------
There does NOT exist any proof that He influenced one group of translators to the exclusion of all others. That's a KJVO pipe dream, Michelle, that you simply CANNOT prove.
--------------------------------------------------

The proof is the EVIDENCE of the alterations exposed in all the mv's of today, to that of what He has already provided in our language for generations.

The modern versions are not the same as what the churches have ALWAYS had. There is the PROOF that you deny.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle:Your problem is robycop, that you care not for the truth, and ignore it, deny it when you are faced with it.

I have been faced with nothing but guesswork, opinion, and propaganda. OTOH, I have provided CLEAR PROOF against every argument from the KJVO myth. Many of these proofs are right here on this board, and scores of other readers can back these statements up.


You have been answered, you CHOOSE not to see the truth, because your agenda seems to be to try to prove the truth a lie (which you will NEVER be able to do), slander those who bring you that truth, when in reality and truth you are blinded by the lie, and won't let the light of the truth shine in.

Here's one little answer of yours that shows who's not on exactly friendly terms with the truth:

You say you're NOT KJVO. Yet, when asked what other version(s) you recommend, you chose not to answer at all for awhile, then you finally said, "Any version thich follows the same sources as the KJV, the Textus Receptus, the Masoretic Texts...but when I asked for a SPECIFIC version(s) you go back into "silent" mode. This can be verified by just about every reader here! Your "silence" simply shows us you're clueless.

It is called stubborness, and stiff-necked. Just as the Israelites of old were.

And now it's called "KJVO".

 

Michelle said "The modern versions are not the same as what the churches have ALWAYS had."

ALWAYS? The Church generally started out with the Septuagint (although in different areas and languages, some used the Peshitta and others). Later, when Latin came to dominate Christian liturgy, the Vulgate was the Bible the church had. Erasmus later put together a Greek NT in the 1500s, which would later come to be known as the Textus Receptus, and only some of the church used it. The TR became dominant in Protestant churches for a few hundred years only, much less time than the LXX or Vulgate dominated. In the late 1800s, the WH text was produced, and the church in general has accepted it - there are pockets here and there that still prefer the TR over WH, but the idea that the TR is what the church "ALWAYS had" is folly. It is what the church had for about one fifth to one quarter of church history.

 

--------------------------------------------------
This topic started about pre-1611 English BVs. Not ONE of 'em is alike any other, even though they were largely made by the same man-Myles Coverdale, who was Tyndale's student. And you CANNOT deny that Coverdale was a scholar nor that he was devout, often working at the peril of his life, to continue Tyndale's mission of providing an accurate English translation of God's word. If anyone worked under God's influence (and protection), it was Coverdale. This all shows God is NOT LIMITED to just one version, nor did He retire in 1611 as you seem to be telling us.
--------------------------------------------------

And I am sorry, that you seem to be unable to discern, understand and fully comprehend why these were so, and how that does not compare to nor is the same reason as that of the problems of the issue of modern versions today. You are trying to compare two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES and claim and believe falsely they are the same.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Give the evidence. John Burgon (Wescott and Hort's most outspoken critic and Scrivener) were NOT KJVO and indicated as much in their books and writings.

I just did a global search on “king james bible” in an electronic King James Bible and found nothing. BTW it was 1769 revision (not sure if was the Oxford or Cambridge).

The history of Psalm 12 shows that there has never been agreement concerning its meaning including KJV translators by their marginal notes in the AV First Edition.

Huh? What exactly is the misinterpretation? Spell it out. The preconceived notion here is “things were are different are not the same”.

Luke 4:17-19
And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written

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 61:1-2
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, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

This is conclusive scriptural proof that Jesus is/was NOT KJVO.

If He were then He would have seen to it that
this Scripture turned out identical in words in both the KJV Old Testament and the New.

So do ALL the different revisions/editions of the KJV.

Therefore using this logic the KJV denies the personality of the Holy Spirit because the KJV translators in some verses call Him “it” in spite of the fact that Jesus called Him “He”.

” yet Jesus admitted later that he was” so, where then does Jesus "admit" that the KJV translators are “inspired" writters of Scripture?

I know Peter Ruckman has written words to this effect but I never have found these words given by Jesus.

Dr. Bob has been here all along. You have this reversed. The KJVO and look-alikes have come here to the BB and caused nothing but strife and division.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
The KJV has "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." But the Greek text has "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." The KJV doesn't make any sense in this verse.

--------------------------------------------------

Just because you don't understand the verse, doesn't mean it is in error. The KJB translors knew the Hebrew, Greek and Enlish language very well, and this verse is correct. This is the verse that the churches have had for generations. I believe God's word, and church history above your opinion of what the Greek says it is.


I figured as much, that one would have to bring (hide behind) a foriegn language to prove the English scriptures in error.

2 Tim. 3

12. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


I believe God, not you, nor your opinion - to which has come from your doubt.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
So if someone had faith that Geneva was without errors, John 16,17, the KJV was not needed and should not have corrected it? Those that did accept the KJV were guilty of Gen 3:1?
--------------------------------------------------

There were no errors in either one.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

So does everyone else here.

Ditto.

Ditto.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
Psalm 12:7 -
“Thou shalt keep them That is, the persons referred to in Psalm_12:5 - the poor and the needy who were suffering from the wrongs inflicted on them. The idea is, that God would guard and defend them. They were safe in his hands. Compare Psalm_37:3-7.
From this generation - This generation, or this race of detractors, flatterers, and oppressors. The idea is, that that entire generation was eminently wicked, and that none but God could deliver the poor and the needy from their designs.
Forever - That is, “constantly,” or as long as they would need the divine protection. God would not interpose and save them from the “present” trouble, and then leave them to the designs of their enemies, but he would “always” interpose as often as there was any need of his help. That is, they were now, and would be at all times, entirely safe. They had nothing to fear, for God was their refuge and their help.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If your interpretation of "them" in this passage is pertaining to "people" then, you should be able to indicate "how" God said He would do this, not only in this passage, but with other scripture as well, so as to rightly divide the word of truth for the correct interpretation and understanding. This sadly, many are not doing, nor does one do, and as a result comes away with a false understanding that God would not preserve his pure words for every generation. Because of misinterpretation of this verse, in light of all other scripture, this false understanding is in essence calling God a liar. I will have no part in this, as God does not, nor can not lie.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

A difference of opinion concerning a verse of Scripture does not constitute calling God a liar by either party.

Danger.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
The existence of these texts, and the issues surrounding them, are not the same thing as KJV-onlyism.
--------------------------------------------------

And this is your opinion due your bias and applying of a false and man-made label. You blind yourself of the truth of this issue because of this. This false label that you fight are the sunglasses put onto you by the devil that are blinding you from the light of the truth regarding this issue.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle