Is this use of "bravery" in KJV unusual?

define mistakes.

Are you saying God is not perfect?

 

Are you saying that the KJV 1611 is God?

 

I would appreciate any Biblical instruction you can give me to prove that God did not speak in English before or after 1611. I would hate to disagree with His divine word, please show me from the Scriptures where I err. Please do not attempt any unbiblical human reasoning - God's word should suffice.

At the end of the day there is only one argument to use bravery here, flawed though the argument is - the translators used the right because that is the word they used.

 

The same argument is even righter if you
make it with big letters!

the translators used the right
word because that
is the word they used

Someboooody want to SHOUT 'Amen'?

​

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV1611 Edition):

16 All Scripture* is giuen by inspiration of God, & is profitable
for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, for instrution
in righteousnesse,
17 That the man of God may be perfect#,
throughly furnished vnto all good workes.

* Note #1: And let the saints add:
all Scripture = KJV

Someboooody want to SHOUT 'Amen' again?

# Note #2: Ima gettin' perfecter & perfecter
cause I've got the KJV1611 Edition (electronic
and paper), the KJV1769 Edition (electronic &
paper), the KJV1873 Edition (paper), and
last, but certainly not least: the UNKNOWN KJV
Edition, Cambridge University Press 'Standard
Text Edition' (but it has the Devil's Paw print -
also known as 'The ISBN number" on it) - upon
which I paid my tax to the Blessed Queen of England,
the United Queendom, the 13 American Colonies,
India, China, the prison continent: Australia,
and other major & minor places around the world,
on Luna, on Mars, and other major & minor places
around the Solar System.

Who is he whom God saved the most?
God has saved the most he
whom has the most copies of the REAL and
ONLY Bible, the King James VI of Scotland & King James I
of England type Version starting in 1611 by the original
translators, in 1629 by the Holy Cambridge University
Press, and perpetually Authorized by the Divine Providence
of God.

 

The answer to the question at the start of the thread is "Yes - it is unusual."

 

If you don't know the definition of a mistake, then you are worse off than I thought.... :wavey:

But to help you out, here are a few words that mean mistake... inaccuracy, error, fault, oversight

So, are there any mistakes in the KJV1611? If so, IT IS NOT PERFECT.

And no version is God...
That is idol worship, which is what you are flirting with.

 

The KJV, as any other valid Bible version, is the perfect word of God translated by imperfect men. Takes no "bravery" to figure that'n out!

 

Amen, Brother Robycop3 - Preach it! :thumbs:

In fact, I have three different paper KJVs all of
which are the Perfect Written Word of God - with
zits.

I like to think of them as
KJV1611 Edition - Perfect;
KJV1769 Edition - Perfecter;
KJV1873 Edition - Perfectist!

 

Are you saying God isn't perfect enough to preserve His word without error?

 

you asK for something amiss and that doesn't exist, thus your attempt must fit under the group heading of mal-intent.

You do err in the fact that which is in part has been done away due to the fact that which is perfect is come: The Word of God.

You will not accept this as proof due to your insitence to try and validate conflicting versions as the word of God.

It may not be your motive, but your stance on the matter attacks the KJB which you claim to trust in.

You seem confused. I wonder why.

 

Since you seem to be the authority on such, please define "intrution"?

 

So you have no evidence to support your viewpoint? Thats what I expected.

I assure you my dear friend that there is no confusion on my part. I just wish you could give Bible support for your view.

No matter how harsh your posts Sal I am not going to retaliate in kind. I have more respect for you as my brother in Christ.

 

No, it is the common use in that day which is perfectly definable and necessary to incorporate the meaning into a perfect understanding of the traditions of that time of the originally inspired words.

it is only "unusual" because of men who change. Men attempt to change God's word to fit his own everchanging. God has never changed, neither has His word.

 

Why did the KJV translators change the word to suit their own purposes. They already had a perfectly good translation

Isa 3:18 "In that day shall the Lorde take away the ornament of the slippers, and the calles, and the round tyres,"

God has never changed, neither has His word.

 

I was not unkind as you would like to assume. I made an observation and said it only seemed you were confused.

For an example, please re-read your quotes from above.

I gave reference without detail to specific Scripture by book,chapter, and number. I know you are familiar with the passage, it is just many who argue against the KJB make the same erroneous claim that the Scripture referred to doesn't mean that God has perfected His word when prohecies and tongues have ceased.

 

So now is it your claim that prophecies and tongues did not cease until 1611? Do you have evidence for that?

 

The
"slippers" are not the same as the tinkling anklets the word of God refers to. The implication is that the ornate appearance was one of beauty, not mere ornamentation which could be regarded as comely or unattractive.

There's more to the actual words of God than mere "understandable" ( by limited man's logic) translations.

Most mistakes occur in the discussing the word of God when forgetting it's God's words and not men's words.:tonofbricks:

 

Simple question Sal.

Did the English speaking people of the world have the word of God before 1611?

Yes?
No?

 

Nice try, but NO. There is no evidence of the sort, but there is the evidence of the non-conflicting, nor confusing, nor omitting of clear doctrinal passages KJB.

The KJB reflects and is the word of God. Other versions offer altered meanings and even confusing and conflicting meanings. But than some still insist that God incorporates evil and wicked deceitful men's appertunances to accomplish His will and is even deceived at times.:wavey:

 

No, not in English, though they did have very close translations of it. They did have it in the originals yet to be perfectly translated into a perfectly definable form of that English as well as any English.

That English is a secondary langauge is a well known fact and only God would have inspired translators to render the inspired word of God without error to those who speak English and would also have that English perfectly definable.

Thus we have and maintain the KJB to be that perfectly preserved and inspired word of God.

Arguing against that statement is arguing against the preservation of the word of God and the God who has preserved it.