KJVO

Sure it is,with the orthographical,punctuation,and typographical errors corrected;it is the same English text that the 1611 uses...

[ January 18, 2003, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: MV-NEVER'ist ]

 

Sure it is,with the orthographical,punctuation,and typographical errors corrected;it is the same English text that the 1611 uses... </font>[/QUOTE]Ignoring for the moment that there *were* textual changes that were not typos, who had the authority to correct "orthographical,punctuation,and typographical errors"? Why did these errors show up in the 1611 in the first place - couldn't God get it right the first time?

 

Who gave authority to those from 1881 on to oust God out of the AV 1st-Tim 3:16??,who gave them free will to remove Christ out of Rom 1:16?;who's decision was it to remove his name from Acts 22:16??? Why would they omit God from worship in Phil 3:3?? Wht would they demote my savior in the MV's in Psalms 8:5??,And why would they tell us NOT to do what Mark 10:21 said to do?? And why would someone *remove* the Blood from Col 1:14??? Now tell me, WHO gave these good "godly" men the AUTHORITY to do such???

[ January 18, 2003, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: MV-NEVER'ist ]

 

Who gave authority to those from 1881 on to oust God out of the AV 1st-Tim 3:16??,who gave them free will to remove Christ out of Rom 1:16?;who's decision was it to remove his name from Acts 22:16??? Why would they omit God from worship in Phil 3:3?? Wht would they demote my savior in the MV's in Psalms 8:5??,And why would they tell us NOT to do what Mark 10:21 said to do?? And why would someone *remove* the Blood from Col 1:14??? Now tell me, WHO gave these good "godly" men the AUTHORITY to do such???</font>[/QUOTE]No, no, no, attempts at changing the subject will not work with me. Completely sidestepping the question is not an answer. I'll address your questions when you address mine: who had the authority to correct "orthographical, punctuation, and typographical errors"? Why did these errors show up in the 1611 in the first place - couldn't God get it right the first time?

 

He was not "ousted." The name of God was never there. It was included by those who were trying to "clarify" the text. It is clear from the context that "ho" refers to God.

It was not removed. Paul most likely did not write it. It was added.

[/b]Luke's

They did not omit God from worship. They promote the deity of the HOly Spirit by clearly attributing worship to Him. Furthermore, the word in question is theou, which is a genitive meaning of or from. It is the Spirit of God. The Majority text agrees with this. The TR has a deficient reading of theo (dative).

I don't follow you here. The savior is not mentioned in Psalm 8.

Again, this does not seem to make any sense. All the versions agree here.

It wasn't removed from Col 1:14. Paul didn't write it; someone else added it in because of the similarity to Eph 1:7, which incidentally talks of the blood in all the MVs exposing as fraudulent the claim that the MVs omit the blood.

These are translations and textual issues. What your list has shown again is that the KJOnly people have no legitimate doctrinal claims against the MVs.

 

Why dont you ask him?? You (among others) are the ones who doubt the word of God. He did get it right(Psalms 12:6-7)I know it is right by the HATRED aimed at it,no one blasts the over 200 conflicting versions.The AV always gets blasted,then the people who hate it call those who hold it as perfect as IDIOTS.. I have the FINAL AUTHORITY the AV1611. I have "Thus sayeth the LORD" right here next to me(AV1611); not "Thus sayeth,scholarship,MEN,tradition,SELF",ect...

[ January 18, 2003, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: MV-NEVER'ist ]

 

Why dont you ask him?? You (among others) are the ones who doubt the word of God. He did get it right(Psalms 12:6-7)I know it is right by the HATRED aimed at it,no one blasts the over 200 conflicting versions.The AV always gets it.. I have the FINAL AUTHORITY the AV1611. I have "Thus sayeth the LORD" right here next to me(AV1611); not "Thus sayeth,scholarship,MEN,tradition,SELF",ect...</font>[/QUOTE]Maybe you don't understand my question. You yourself admitted there were errors in the 1611 KJV (orthographical, punctuation, and typographical). If the KJV 1611 was the "FINAL AUTHORITY", why were there these errors? Who corrected them, and under what authority? How can the "FINAL AUTHORITY" be corrected?

 

Who told you that???

You mean to tell me you never made an error when typing or writing???

The people who were at Cambridge & Oxford.

That is a very good question;the same one I have asked myself about people like W&H,Origen and any body 1880 till now..I would rather have 1 AV with countless orthographical, punctuation, and typographical errors than a truck load of grammer perfect modern version trash.

 

Of course I have. But I do not inspire scripture, or produce the "FINAL AUTHORITY".

The people who were at Cambridge & Oxford.</font>[/QUOTE]Which people, and how do you know? Many of these corrections were made decades (even centuries) after the original translators had died. By what authority did they make these corrections? How do you know they made the *right* corrections, and corrected *everything*?

That is a very good question
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, that is a good question. I am still waiting for your answer, instead of another attempt at changing the subject. How can the 1611 be the "FINAL AUTHORITY", if it was corrected? Do you not understand the definition of "FINAL"?

 

So what?? I have a new AV1611( I forget the publisher) that has a HEAP of mis-spelled words in it;what is the big deal?? It(the AV1611) is perfect...

 

JYD
what i hear you saying is "my 1611...it has errors..it is perfect" Now that doesn't make sense. Can God not spell corectly? I know i can't The autographa never had to be corected: ) by the way does your 1611 have the apocrpha? seriously, i'm just asking out of curiosity.
reuben

 

Interesting. It has a "HEAP" spelling errors, yet is "perfect". It is the "FINAL" authority, yet is later "corrected". Am I the only one seeing a basic lack of understanding of the definition of simple English words here? "Perfect" and "error" are not compatible. "Final" and "correction" are not compatible. Why are so many willfully blind to this simple truth???

 

Psalms 12:6-7, if I count correctly,from 1611 to 1850 there were 7 editing between those years. There, question answered;now take it for what it's worth..

Yes I do, I have the FINAL authority right here in front of me,the AV1611. It is YOU who has NO final authority, just guess-work..

 

BrianT
well, in the greek perfect doesn't mean "perfect" it means mature, so maybe they think the 1611 is mature that's it ! oh wait, can't use greek
reuben

 

Psalms 12:6-7, if I count correctly,from 1611 to 1850 there were 7 editing between those years. There, question answered;now take it for what it's worth..
</font>[/QUOTE]I see. So Psalm 12:6-7 was a complete lie in 1605, partially true in 1611, and finally completely true in 1850. Gotcha. So much for the 1611 being the "FINAL" authority, since the 1850 is more perfect and corrected it.

Yes I do, I have the FINAL authority right here in front of me,the AV1611.</font>[/QUOTE]No, I still think you do not understand the definition of "FINAL", based on your comments about 1850. If the 1611 was indeed your "FINAL" authority, you would not have replaced it with a corrected 1850.

 

You would have us to believe that EVERY MV since 1881 was without ANY spelling or printing errors?? Surely not, we all know that is nothing but incoherant drivel,of course they have errors in spelling and such,and yet they are held with the Highest esteem..

 

1611 or 1850 which is final,pick one, they are not the same.
reuben

 

You would have us to believe that EVERY MV since 1881 was without ANY spelling or printing errors??</font>[/QUOTE]No, I would not have you believe that at all. I would rather have you answer the question I asked of you.

 

nobody says the english versions are the final authority. it is the original langs.

 

The chief editor of the niv is quoted in new age bible versions and is proved to be a heretic concerning salvation. Why would anyone want a work by him? Wescott and Hort are quoted and proved to be in support of Mary worship and Satanism in Final Authority and new age bible versions yet people continue to defend their work.