King James Bible vs New age versions

So why didn't you? Why didn't you stop him and tell him that it showed disrespect for God to rip a Bible apart?

What biblical proof do you have that KJVOnlyism is true or that the NASB is not a valid, accurate version of God's Word. Even the KJV translators said that when God in His providence has seen fit to leave the actual words of a passage in doubt that fear should be preferred rather than certainty. They didn't believe that one should declare one reading the absolute standard over another unless God providentially revealed it by strength of evidence. The differences between the KJV and NASB do not make one the Word and the other not.

What this man did is terrible. Will God hold him blameless for showing this kind of disrespect for the Bible? I doubt it.

I know your knee jerk response QS: That the NASB is not God's Word. So save it this time... instead of giving that worn out unsubstantiated response... prove it.

Prove that the revelation of God is not preserved in the NASB. Show a doctrine provable in the KJV but not in the NASB. The fact is you can't do it. None of you can. You can discuss how the KJV and NASB differ here or there but you cannot prove that they establish different doctrines and truths... because they don't. They are both valid versions of God's Word.

 

I am still waiting for your answer,
Tim L Bynum. CAN YOU GET SAVED THROUGH THE PASSAGES I SHOWED YOU? YES, would be considered welcome back to reality, No, is saying God I dont beleive I can become Saved.Or are you afraid?

 

Cranston, adding vowels to the tetragrammaton is a big no-no in many people's sight. YhWh is acceptable, you have corrupted the name above all others by adding those vowels.

BTW, since these "apples and oranges" are both seemingly growing on the same "tree" would it be worthwhile to note that apples grow nearly in any climate but oranges have to have it just "right"? I mean "apples" of gold in pictures of silver are Biblical, but oranges are common only to , uh, preferrable climates. You know, like what's only pleasing to the uh, flesh?

For those who may not understand, the AV 1611 KJB refers to these apples in Proverbs 25:11 A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.

Most mv advocates rely on the more common fruit of the region of that time frame to be oranges or apricots, they cannot come to agree on which, but the evidence is what is common to man, and not common like the Word of God/ apples of gold, in pictures of silver. Maybe yall can "wrestle' that for a while, yall have been for nearly 130 years.


Just a thought.

 

Quickening Spirit, you readily acknowledge that the Gospels differ because of different writers giving different accounts. Having been a cop, I've known that for years.

We must apply that same principle to the differing manuscripts. Shoot, we don't have any idea who wrote most of them! But we DO know that the advocates of the Onlyist myth often stake their only hope of finding any truth to their myth in the differences between mss, saying that some of them have omitted material, especially the "Alex" mss. Actually, they cannot prove that the "Byz" mss or some others haven't ADDED material. Anyway, they're different works by different authors, same as the Gospels themselves, and if we apply the "different writers make different accounts" principle to the Gospels, we must apply that principle across the board. Otherwise, we're using a double standard, applying a principle to only one part of Scripture and not to all of it.

 

But the maker knows the difference. The KJV was translated by a group of pedobaptists. You do adhere to their Bible. Do you adhere to their doctrine?

You do know that when the KJV came along many in the church thought it was of the devil. Do you fit into that category. Your arguments are exactly the same. Except your Bible was translated by pedobaptists. You also forgot to include the original apocrypha. Why have you omitted it? The tranlslators did not.

Sounds like the same old arguments go on and on.

 

Bro. Ed, you hit the nail on the head when you said "LIVING WORD". The works of Shakespeare were frozen in time at his death, but the Author of God's word is , and always has been, ALIVE. Not only alive, but IN CHARGE. His word is meant for all mankind, and, being alive through the power of its Author, is presented to the successive generations of mankind in readable form for virtually all the languages and cultures God has allowed to come into being around the world. God's word is NOT frozen in time as are the works of men.

Shakespeare sometimes altered a play even as it was being performed, giving the actors his changes at the conclusion of a given performance. Cannot Almighty God cause His word to be given in the language of the day so much more than could Shakespeare with his human works?

I praise GOD for making His word available to me that I might have life through reading and believing it from the AV 1611, 1769 KJB, NIV, NASB, NKJV, and some others!

 

In the words of the KJV translators of the Bible who added to the words of the Bible "God forbid".

HankD

 

Perfect description of some of the KJVOs...

 

Well, there was this scholar & Pharisee named Saul in whom Jesus took a special interest...

 

Uh, I did, any further action would have been of catholicism inlfuence

Scott, I wouldn't confuse the efforts of the translators like that, the Preface is actually quite clear, uh, a "better" mean anything to you? I see you do admit there are differences in the AV 1611 KJB as opposed to the nas"v", (Oooo! that tears yall up, doesn't it?)

I have never said the nas"v" doesn't contain portions of the Word of God, I have "ONLY" said the AV1611 KJB is the Word of God.

I burned the book of mormon one time, does this put me in the same catagory? BTW, the printed Name of Jesus is not actually Diety. Even if it were, a mere mortal could not tear God apart.

I know your knee-jerk response, Scott and it won't help to prove any different, you belive the nas"v" is the Word of God and I know the AV 1611 KJB is. Your so-called "proofs" are corrupt and worn out. Uh, the LORD is The Ancient of Days, not the newly derived of days.

Scott, we all know your switch and bait tactics. Even when given proof, yall turn and say "BUT!", then yall wonder why we refer that to the antics of a goat, not sheep.

I can agree we disagree, but I know I'm right!

 

Cranston, The Byzantine are in harmony, just like the Harmony of the Gospels, that cannot be said by the alexandrian.

 

Finally QS, you have made a statement which is evidential and not an ad hominem, but can you prove what you claim?

HankD

 

Nine hours since I looked in and still

 

O.K. gb, Now tell us all why they placed it in there and for what specific purpose, you rant and rave about it, but many of us know the facts, you try to dilute them, uh, with tainted water.

 

Finally QS, you have made a statement which is evidential and not an ad hominem, but can you prove what you claim?

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Yep! By the same way I can prove God exists! F A I T H!

 

O.K. gb, Now tell us all why they placed it in there and for what specific purpose, you rant and rave about it, but many of us know the facts, you try to dilute them, uh, with tainted water. </font>[/QUOTE]After all there are those who claim the KJV to be inpsired by God. However it is translated by pedobaptists. So if they really believe it is inspired then why not accept all of what they claim to be inspired and not omit some of it. How could one claim the KJV to be inspired and not accept the doctrine of the translators. I don't see anywhere in scripture where the doctrine of the inspired version is diffreent than those who were inspired. Do you?

 

Hey! Welcome to the discussion! I'm glad you finally have found your place to "fit" in!

I'm glad I quoted your post, it gives me the text format to your "smiley" uh, angry, emoticons. You did actually honour my request, unwillingly though, but all the same, Thanks!