FYI: Good Defense of the KJV site

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by LadyEagle, Feb 21, 2004.

  1. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    http://av1611.com/kjbp/index.html

    This site also has Bible Version Verse Comparison Charts.
     
  2. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lady, why did God wait until 1611 to preserve his word?

    When you can answer that question, please tell me why the KJV corrected what was God's word prior to the KJV.

    Apparently ignorance IS a virtue.
     
  3. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, this site doesn't seem so bad. Bro Will Kinney has written an essay for it. It at least attempts to address issues. Now I didn't say I agree with 'em! ;)
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    In about two minutes I found this lie there:

    "There have been several editions of the KJV, most recently the 1769 edition, which is in common use today."

    The KJV1873 is later than the 1769 and is
    in common use today. I have a copy
    in TODAY'S PARALLEL BIBLE along with
    other good English Bibles like:
    NASB, NIV, and NASB.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    What all did you say this 1873 edition contains?
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    You never did tell me what your alleged
    KJV1762 says or how you can tell if you
    have one.

    Ruth 3:15d (KJV1873):
    ... and he went into the city.
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
  8. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
  9. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah I did, you just missed it, but here goes again:

    The Cambridge 1762 reads "she".

    Naomi was in Bethlehem. Naomi is Ruth's mother-in-law. Ruth is a "she". Ruth was laiden with barley by Boaz. Ruth went to her mother-in-law's house with the barley Boaz gave her. Bethlehem is a city. Bethlehem is the city where Naomi was. Ruth went to Bethlehem to see Naomi.

    Simply put, when you read the Book of Ruth you can't help but come to the knowledge of the Truth.
     
  10. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speaking of the last phrase
    in Ruth 3:15:
    Precepts: //The Cambridge 1762 reads "she".//
    The KJV1769 reads "she".
    So the KJV1873 is NOT the KJV1769.
    So the KJV1873 is not the KJV1762.

    Precepts: "Simply put, when you read the Book of Ruth you
    can't help but come to the knowledge of the Truth."

    Amen, Brother Prescepts.
    ANd the Book of Ruth can be read in the 3 or 4
    common KJVs, the NIV, the nKJV, the NASB ...

    Jesus doesn't limit God to one and only
    one version; why should I?

    [​IMG]
     
  12. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    So Precepts, are you saying that the 1873 KJV is not right?
    If so, then how do you uphold the 1611, since it agrees with the 1873 (even in the marginal notes)

    Which KJB is the right one?

    Even if it was just printors errors, an error is an error. no excuse.

    BTW Ed, I also love my "Today's Parallel Bible"
    I put it in a bible cover and that's what I carry.

    But I think you made a mistake, (or possibly a printer's error [​IMG] )
    It contains the 1873 KJB, NIV, NASB, and the NLT
    YOu said it contained 2 NASBs.

    I would suggest anyone looking for a Bible to get "Today's Parallel Bible"
     
  13. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    FYI:Typical Alexandrian "Sect" propaganda....
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, i have three KJVs and don't have the one that
    is the word of God? This is JUST LIKE those
    who teach me all the bibles we have
    are errant casuse only the original autographs
    are inerrant.

    Sorry Bros & Sises, I have over a
    dozen copies of the inerrant preserved
    word of God for the 21st century right
    on my computer desk (more in my library).


    Amen, Brother Tinytim -- Preach it! [​IMG]

    You roll Bro!
    May all God's best blessings be upon Bro.
    Tinytim this Lord's Day and unto his family
    and unto his ministry. Amen.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    FYI:Typical Alexandrian "Sect" propaganda.... </font>[/QUOTE]All right, let's see you refute its points-with FACT & SCRIPTURE, not propaganda.
     

Share This Page

Loading...