I need two willing people

well, I understand about context, the experience I had was as a newborn in Christ, and it forever changed my views on what Bible to read.

I can only go by what the LORD has led me to do, and that is to read and study the KJV bible.

The LORD speaks to me with that bible.

I can not go by what a person tells me, for my final authority must be the bible. And if the bible I am reading requires me to have to go elsewhere to get the "true" meaning, then that bible is failing me. I do not have to do such things with a KJV.

I do so love the LORD and I am growing in Christ, and the bible I read is what has fed me to do so.

I think about how the arguments over what version is better or worse and I think about those who live in other countries that dont even have a bible to read, those who have to walk a two or three day journey just to hear a preacher.

I dont expect the LORD to have to accommodate to the new way English is spoken, I am expected to learn the Word of God by HIS standards, NOT MINE. For my standards are not good enough.

I appreciate all of your comments, I truly do. Yet I am so uncomfortable with other versions, and I dont want to go against what the LORD has provided for me.

 

Amen! Tenderhearted. God has promised that not one word of His Word, not one jot, not one tittle would fail or be lost. "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalms 12:6&7

 

tenderhearted and Ledlak, you both really need to get a handle on the issues in question here.

You have been sucked into this system of belief by people who are completely clueless. If Wescott & Hort were alive, they could have sued Gail Riplinger into the ground so badly she would have to pay them a nickel every time she took a breath.

SHE LIED!!!!!!!! Plain and simply put............. Gail Riplinger lied in all of her books. Her quotes would fail in a high school English class. Peter Ruckman is pretty much insane and the worst of the worst. I dont even feel like getting started on him.

 

If God is not the author of confusion, then who is "the author of confusion?" The scripture saith not, "an author of confusion" but "the author of confusion", therefore, there must be "an author of confusion." Where do you think the enemy (the author of confusion) would spend most of his time, at Hustler publishing or translating committees? "Beware of the scribes" Luke 20:46 "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Genesis 3:1

 

Not one jot or tittle?

Explain 1 John 5v12 in the 1611 KJV and the 1769 KJV.

Would you include the translating committee meeting in London in 1611?

 

Show me the Word

Can anyone on this board point the way to the inerrant Word of God? Where can I go to find out what God has said to me as an English speaking person? Must I learn Greek? Must I learn Hebrew? How about Latin? Is the Word of God to be found in your collective opinions about what is and what is not the Word of God? Is it to be found in the unending collections of commentaries on the subjects of manuscript evidence, translations, idiomatics, semantics, concordances, Bible dictionaries, interlinearies, etc., etc.? How do I know that the Canon established in a particular translation includes all of what God said? How do you know? How do you know which doctrines are from God by which you judge whether or not a particular version teaches the correct doctrines? I want the Word of God...in my hand...by itself...without commentary...without qualification or reservation...can you show me where it is?

 

Is 1 John 5v12 inerrant in the 1611 KJV or the 1769 KJV?

You contend there is one - which is it?

 

I have to agree with you here, I speak and read English, NOT Hebrew or Greek.

Woe, Peter Ruckman is a dying breed, you don't find to many Bible Believing Preachers that tell ya like it is anymore, God Bless Dr. Ruckman, he indeed is a God Fearing preacher, I have been truly blessed by his sermons.

 

First, welcome to the Baptist Board. :wavey:

Now,

"for whi God is not of discencioun, but of pees; as in alle chirchis of hooli men `Y teche." (WYC-P 1384)

"For God is not causer of stryfe: but of peace as he is in all other congregacions of the saynctes." (TYN- 1526)

"For God is not a God off discension, but off peace, like as in all congregacions off the sayntes." (MCB - 1535)

"For God is not [the aucthour] of confusion, but of peace, as in all Churches of the saintes." (BIS - 1568)

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as we see in all ye Churches of the Saints." (GEN - 1587)

"For God is not the God of dissension, but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints." [RHE (D-R) - 1582, updated spelling]

Oh yeah! This is how the KJ-1611 reads. "For God is not the authour of confusion, but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints."

So who gets to actually decide which is the 'perfect' rendering, here?

They all seem to say pretty much the same thing, to me, anyway, much as Dale-c noted above.

Ed

 

Which of these two renderings is from the perfect word of God?

Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life. - KJV1611

OR

He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. - KJV1769

 

Are you contending that there is not an inerrant Word of God to which I can appeal with all confidence? If not, where is it? If that is indeed your contention, on what do you base anything in which you believe? I am not trying to be contentious. God Himself said that He would preserve His words. I believe God.

 

Please! Please someone answer the question of C4K, shortly!

I have been waiting for the answer to C4K's question for more than two years, now, and am apparently nearing the end of my pilgrimage on this earth, at the age of 61. (Terminal cancer.) I really would like to hear the answer from someone before I depart this life.

Ed

 

as I have learned it was the printing presses in 1611, and the spelling errors were corrected in the latter version, but they both are the same.

 

Ed, I am sorry to hear that. My mother just went thru radiation and chemo for cervical cancer, she is fine now, yet it is a tough battle to face. My prayers are with you.

 

So, the 1611 KJV was not perfect? It has this mistake in it? It was more than a spelling error. The very name of God was omitted. Those who apply 'jot and tittle' to translational preservation have a tough job here.

Apparently God could not preserve His word at the printers? His name was left out and He did not keep it there? Do you believe God Who said He would preserve His word, or a man who has explained that the printers could mess it up?

How then do you know the 1769 is right?

 

HOW do I know that I have the right version? I prayed and prayed, and I was given my answers with the KJB.

 

Did the same my friend and came up with a different answer.

Thank God His word is available for us both!

 

I understand, I do. I thank God for HIS word and for HIS grace, for HIS grace is greater than HIS mercy. AMEN to that

 

Sorry! Wrong answer on this one!

There are no spelling (or printing) errors at this verse in question.

The fact that the spelling of the early 1600s is not the same as we use today is another question, entirely.

That there do happen to be differences in some spellings from the time of Tyndale (1520s) through the KJ-1611 through the Paris/Blaney revisions of the 1760s [and even today (Check out the AKJV or KJ21, sometime.)], is true, but again, this is not the same question, as C4K has pointed out.

And as C4K has also indirectly pointed out, the bit about there being "printer's errors" simply doesn't fly as to the claim made, here, either.

Nor is there any question about most earlier versions vs. the KJ-1769, here, either. The TYN (1525), MCB (1535), BIS (1568), and GEN (1587) all have "son of God", as do also the TR (1550), MT, and W/H (1881) texts (τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ) and even the VUL from 425. The WES (1755) gets it right, as well.

However, my friend, there is exactly one version which fully supports the KJ-1611 here, and I submit that this is from whence it arose, and came to be incorporated into the KJ-1611. That version (horror of horrors) happens to be the D-R.

Personally, I'm thankful for the efforts of Drs. Paris and Blaney in recognizing this and getting the correct rendering into the 1769 revision, here.

Just please remember, things that are different are not the same, even when it comes to the area of "King James Bibles!"

Ed

 

I suppose you can agree with me on this:.

as much as I am for the KJV and won't change my mind, you are the same in the way for the Newer Versions.