KJVOnly or KJV?

The interpreters/translators who made the 1611 KJV did not include any separatists, independents, Presbyterians, or Methodists. A few of the KJV translators were or had been Puritans, but the Puritans were still members of the Church of England. All the translators/interpreters were members of the Church of England.

A majority of them were not bishops although they had offices or high positions in the Church of England.

KJV-only author David Cloud claimed that “only three of the men assigned to the KJV translation committee in 1604 were bishops” (Glorious History, p. 153). Gerald Hammond listed five translators as being bishops [Lancelot Andrewes, Thomas Ravis, George Abbot, William Barlow, James Montagu] (Making of the English Bible, pp. 138, 231 note 3). Some translators were made bishops between 1604 and 1611, which includes Ravis in 1605 and Abbot in 1609. Some translators were made bishops after 1611 such as Miles Smith around 1612 and John Overall in 1614 and perhaps some others. Thomas Bilson was also already a Bishop, but he is not listed as a member of any of the six translation groups or committees.

 

Being Anglican in nature is not something to be feared. Men in the Church of England, until recently, were God fearing men of the word. Think of all the great authors who gave us great studies in the word over the years.

I was saved in the Church of England before I ever stepped foot into a Baptist Church.

It should also be noted that the Brethren, methodists and Puritans were all members of the Church of England before they went their own ways. Wesleys and Whitfield died members of the Church of England. It was after Wesley's death the first Wesleyan Methodist church was formed. I would suggest a sound evangelical foundation.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I have not read the two words concerning p--- and d--- in the new testament anywhere.
In the ot I have read the word p---eth against the wall and probable have read something concerning eat their ownd--- maybe. [Bible attack deleted]

 

I have been patiently awaiting a reply from several individuals who basically accused me of heresy and threw my character under the bus. Its been more than a couple of days and I've noticed they posted elsewhere.

Looking forward to their replies.

 

You are confused.The old "Living Bible" is not the New Living Translation i.e.NLTse.You better get the facts straight.Furthermore, I guess you disagree with the Preface of the 1611 KJV.

Before you call any old Bible garbage -- wash your mouth and mind prior to typing.You're treading dangerous ground.

 

Forgive them. They know not what they do.

Don't hold your breath, PJ! KJVOs (and some non-KJVOs) normally don't apologize for anything. I believe it's usually because of pride and arrogance.

Let's go back a minute to your post on Christmas Eve Eve (Dec. 23) in which you responded to a few things I'd previously said.

I said...

Your response was...

Yup! What you said! That sums it up pretty well.

I should have explained myself a little better. I meant I firmly believe the Bible is of divine origin (inspiration). I definitely don't believe the Bible is on a par with God. I definitely don't believe the Bible, the written word of God, is the same as Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God. And thank you for not wanting to put words in my mouth - there's enough of that going on around here already. I won't name names or point fingers, but you can read posts in several threads in this forum and easily see those who put words in the mouths of others and those who don't.

 

Knowledge puffeth up

 

[Bible attack deleted - these attacks on the Bible will continue to be deleted and you face possible suspension for posting in violation of the rules]

 

Try 2 Ki 18:27 "...Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? (KJV)

"....men sitting on the wall - who, like you, will have to eat their own filth and drink their own urine? (NIV)

Strong "gutter" talk in either translation???? or just the word of God in truth?

Cheers,

Jim

 

Where is this thread going? Whatever version you preffer doesn't bother me, why should it Bother you so much? Just leave me to my preference of the KJV and let it be.

 

BTW, when are you going to publish a replacement of the "Same ole sin?"
don't you think we ought to bring a new version, one that we can understand more easily?

 

Samuel Owen]Nope Acts 12:4 not a mistake, [/i]

Yes, it IS!


in fact it is most accurate.

No, it ISN'T! The Greek word used here, 'pascha', meant only PASSOVER in Luke's day. There was then NO Greek word for Easter cuz EASTER DIDN'T THEN EXIST.

 

Strange,I do not see in my Greek NT(or any other that is in existence).....could Luke have made a mistake?

 

NT, KJV (I assume 1769 flavor) "dung" occurs, in the NT two times (Lk. 13:8; Phl'p. 3:8)

P*ss does not occur in the NT, according to my Strong's.

What difference does it make if the verse Jim 1999 referred to is in the NT or the OT?

That verse found in the Bible that Jim 1999 refers to is actually found two times, with similar wording, in II Ki. 18:27 and Isa. 36:12.

(I do find it extremely strange that one who apparently is advocating the very words of the KJV as "Thus saith the Lord..." at the same time appears embarrassed by them, and has no problem mutilating two of the Bible's words when speaking about the Bible's use of the same words.)

Is something just not quite adding up, here??

Incidentally since you were unable to find the words, would you maybe like to consider doing a little more reading, first? Then 'talking'?

Most all of us including myself, were given two eyes to see with; two ears to hear with; two hands to help with; two feet to walk with; but only one mouth to yak with, by the Lord, probably for a good reason, I would think.

And since I already yak enough for both of us, you just might probably find a bit of extra time to do more good stuff with :thumbs: , with the extra time I am leaving free for you, while I'm running my own yap.

Ed

 

Bitsy,

I thought I'd straightened you out on this when I had that very-short visit with you on 12/19!!

Guess not.

So, again, please memorize this mantra s-l-o-w-l-y and repeatedly several times a day until you get it right:

"There is no other accurate Bible but the AV 1611 KJV, and Ruckman, and Company are its Prophets!!!"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm only doing this to prevent the BB KJVO-SWAT-TEAM that's....as you read this bleeding-heart plea....lurking around your home's computer from abudcting you and doing things to both you and your computer that are "unspeakable and full of gory--O the half has never yet been told"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :tonofbricks:



PS--That tin of goodies was great!! :thumbs: Unfortunately I'm now reminded of that Dieter's Lament about which I told you --- "A Waist Is A Terrible Thing To Mind!" :smilewinkgrin:

 

Sorry, you are wrong. I have 3 NT prior to the KJV. The 1526 NTs said EASTER. Samuel is right.

 

Pascha could be either passover or easter. Luke did not make any mistakes.

 

gEESH.... Just because 3 prior ENGLISH translations say "easter" does not mean LUKE wrote Easter... he wrote the Greek word for "Passover"...

It is NOT that hard to understand...

Pascha means Passover... NOT EASTER.

And just because someone mistranslated it as EASTER one time in history does not make it mean EASTER.

It is a mistake in the translation of the KJV.

Are you KJVOs afraid to face truth?

 

OH REALLY!!!

So Pascha can be Passover or Easter....

I guess Easter existed before Christ rose from the grave....

Luke 2:41
(41) Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. (Pascha)

 

Does anyone know why the translators used Easter instead of passover?

There must have been a reason they made that choice. If they had a valid reason for it, then it wouldn't be a mistake.