Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Forever settled in heaven, Jul 12, 2003.
What will KJBOs do when their allegations against Modern Versions come up short?
S.Matthew I.18 (KJV1611):
Now the birth of Iesus Christ
was on this wise: When as his mother
Mary was espoused to Ioseph (before
they came together) shee was found
with childe of the holy Ghost.
May Iesus be praised!
The KJB is THE Bible,
there is none other (well, in English).
About 30 years ago the KJBOs said
that there was no English Bible since
the KJB that was translated from the
Received Text. So some of the US mainline
religious scholars got together
and translated the Received Text,
this was in 1980s, the New King James
Version (nKJV). Needless to say, the
KJBOs, grasping at straws, gripe about
the triskelion Nelson Company put on
the title page (calling it the Devil's
Moral of the Story: give a KJVO all they
want and they will ask for more.
Can you believe they stick to a book
written by Baptist banning Anglicans
and distain a book where 1/3 of the
translators were Baptists
Consistency has never been a fault of the onlies!
I just keep asking, WHICH KJV is the perfect, accurate, infallible, inspired one? My Oxford 1769KJV revision has 5000 changes from the AV and hundreds of changes from other revisions of the KJV.
If ONE is the true/only Word of God for English today, SOMEBODY TELL ME WHICH ONE!! That shouldn't be hard.
Your question is incorrect because it confuses anyone and causes the misunderstanding.
The 1769 Cambridge KJV is more accurate than the 1769 Oxford KJV.
Finally .... after all this time, there is someone with an answer. Now a couple of follow up questions ... How did you know that the Cambridge is more accurate than the Oxford? Also, do you preach against the Oxford perversions since its differences obviously make it corrupt (Things that are different are not the same, remember)??
And isn't the Cambridge a 1762 edition, rather than a 1769??
No translation is 100 percent accurate. Every culture and language has words and ideas that are not translatable to another language.
Let me give one simple example. How would you translate the spanish Como estas and Comot esta into English. Most would say. "howa are you?" That is not exactly accurate because there is a significant difference. If you were to go to a Spanish culture and were to ask someone that question (depending on the person) it would be considered rude.
There is never translation without interpretation.
The KJVO's have already come up short. The 1611 KJV uses archaic language for today and uses words that don't have the same meaning today. Therefore sipmly put it is an inaccurate translation for today.
For example you would never say something like Phil. 3:20, "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ
But I might say, "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;
My conversation is not in heaven. It is my citizenship that is in heaven. My inheritance in in haven not my conversation.
I would never say some other vulgar words found in 2 Kings 18:27 and Isaiah 36:12.
Sometime you need to ask a KJV only person how old the oldest manuscript was that the translators used in their translation. Also the translators believed in infant baptism. So if you do believe in infant naptism you would probably see all others as inferior.
Cambridge or Oxford? Which is right one? Ye or He? Jeremiah 34:16 is for example.
Think it was the 1683 "evil" Bible that said,
Now THAT is my kind of KJV! I got a sermon WITH applications ready for that text.
"Now THAT is my kind of KJV! I got a sermon WITH applications ready for that text."
Dr. Griffin, be so kind to post that sermon. This I want to read.
You are the one who said the cambridge is he right one. If I remember correctly I think you are right. My point is that you have decided that one KJV is not perfect and the other is ...
o shudder. sounds like a Bible corrector to me!
None of these -- post your guess
They'll hire Baghdad Bob to tell us why the fallacious KJV-only arguments will never be defeated.
"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that the modern version dogs have started to commit suicide under the walls of Hampton Court. We
will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."
Well I got chewed out pretty violently the other evening by a self-pious KJV nazi, who told me that I could not possibly trust God if I didn't believe the KJV was inspired. This guy wants all other languages to translate their Bibles from the KJV, instead of the original Hebrew, Aramic, and Greek. Personally, I think he's a nut.
And I only use the KJV, but I don't buy the Ruckmanite hype surrounding it.
This statement would be hilarious, if it weren't complete heresy. Our sermon yesterday was about the danger of worshipping the creation, not the Creator................
I will pray for the person who made this statement to you.
NOBODY (with half a brain) wants to be labeled as a "Ruckmanite" since that is an extreme position. And you have to keep divorcing your wife . . .
But they still believe the KJV"O" as the only version, only correct, only inspired, only English, only only only.
Sadly, though disavowing their guru, they de facto embrace him.
Me? I use the AV1611 "she" Bible. But still looking for a copy of the "thou SHALT" revision!
Only changes I know of is spelling and printing errors. Has scripture meaning changed?
That would be the original Greek and Hebrew one .
That's the problem. Most of the translational errors haven't been removed. They still exist in the KJV.
That's the problem. Most of the translational errors haven't been removed. They still exist in the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]So says who, you? Can I have one error to start with?