Questions for KJVO's

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by michael-acts17:11, Jul 7, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. michael-acts17:11

    michael-acts17:11
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    857
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have questions any KJVo's. I have had much difficulty in finding KJVO's who can or will honestly answer these questions.

    1. If God preserved His Word as inerrant, then why did the KJV have to be edited so many times from 1611 through 1769? Does this depend on your definition of "inerrant"?
    2. If the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles were the inerrant and inspired Word of God, then why do we need the KJV?
    3. If previous Bibles contained errors, then does that not mean that God did not preserve His Word inerrant through the centuries?
    4. KJVonlyists always quote Psalm 12:6, claiming that God's written Word had to be purified seven times. Does this doctrine not presume that the written Word was not whole & inerrant for centuries until it was purged of the dross(error) seven times?

    KJVo's tout the kingly authorization of the KJV as proof of it's legitimacy, The KJV1611 was authorized by a pagan king, contained the Apocrypha & was used by Catholics. The Tyndale & Geneva Bibles were translated & used by Christians. The KJB was edited numerous times, but the Tyndale & Geneva did not have to be edited so many times.
    KJVO's praise the fact that the KJB was authorized by a king, but kings were not by God's perfect plan. The Israelites demanded a king out of the wickedness of their hearts. Therefore, does a king "authorization" add to or take from a Bible's credibility?
     
  2. kingjamespreacher

    kingjamespreacher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you for posting your questions. As you know, there is no shortage of those who criticize and castigate those who only use the KJV. I will assume that your question is sincere. Many will not respond to these types of questions because they feel it is a waste of time, and for the most part, they are correct.

    I will answer your points using the same numbers.

    1. First, it's not "if" God has preserved His word. He has. This is a straw man argument as most of the corrections were due to printer errors and typos. Today there are two main KJV texts, the Oxford and Cambridge. The differences between the two are minor having to do with printer preferences.

    2. Who says they were not inerrant and inspired? As to why we need/have the KJV, it's because it's on the bookstore shelf in the Bible section. No sarcasm intended but that question would have to be asked of those folks living in the 1600's.

    3. Which Bible contained errors? How would you know? If you want to call God a liar when He says he will preserve His word, you go right ahead.

    4. I've never quoted that verse for that reason.

    Now let me give you a "shocker". All the Bible down at the bookstore are the inspired word of God. The problem comes in that all those who come from the other line of manuscripts [Bible attack deleted]. I use them. I just don't BELIEVE them. I only BELIEVE the KJV. I believe that position is provable to anyone with an open mind. But of course you can believe whatever you want.

    King James a pagan king. So what? I can preach and lead a person to Christ with a Catholic Bible. What does that prove?

    Well, I could go on. Go to this link to view my short testimony on this subject:

    http://vimeo.com/16557448

    Moderator note: Calling translations of the Bible 'corrupted' is unacceptable.
     
    #2 kingjamespreacher, Jul 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 8, 2011
  3. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to humbly and respectfully disagree. I don't know many who "criticize and castigate" those who only use the KJV. Many use the KJV exclusively but are not strictly KJVO in the typical sense of the word. This is a crucial distinction. Given your statement regarding the veracity and inspiration of other Bible versions, that clearly puts you outside the KJVO camp.
     
    #3 TomVols, Jul 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 7, 2011
  4. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    The originals are the inspired Word of God what we have whether it's the KJV,NIV or others --is an approximation of the originals.

    So you think that there is no corruption in the TR?

    Earlier you said that all the other translations are the Word of God. So despite the fact that they are the Word of God you don't believe them?That doesn't make any sense.

    You haven't demonstrated any proof yet.


    I looked at 11 minutes of your video (it had some tech problems). I think you come across as a nice and sincere man. You probably have many good qualities as a preacher/pastor. However, there were a number of things that concerned me. I'll just address a few issues.

    J.J. Ray is not a good authoritative source to support your position.

    When you say that verses are "deleted" you are automatically making the KJV the standard. What if it's the case that the KJV revisers unintentionally "added" many verses to the text?

    I'm not a Greek guy either,but why do you stand on an English translation more than 1600 years after the original autographs instead of manuscripts that date considerably long before the KJV came about?

    I don't care for the Old Living Bible either --though by God's providence it has been used for a number of folks to come to a better understanding of God.

    Sure there are differences between the KJV and the NIV for instance. You said they were "different" --that's not exactly news.

    You made the claim that people who attend churches in which the KJV is used "act like Christians" and those who use other versions usually don't. That's real anecdotal. My church and pastor uses the NIV and I challenge you to dicover anything liberal there.

    These and other things met my radar test of phoney baloney. Sorry,I don't mean to be disrespectful,but it's true. BTW,we are around the same age and I was saved ten years before you.
     
  5. kingjamespreacher

    kingjamespreacher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    What? You're 29 too?! :thumbsup: jk!

    No, the bottom line is that there is no "proof" (now I'm not talking about the realm of manuscript evidence which is a factual science) as to my position on the KJV. It's by faith. Faith based upon some observations that have convinced me of my position. I don't expect anyone else to hold the same position and I will always try to be gracious to those who don't. This will all iron itself out at the Judgement Seat. Thanks for the comments.
     
  6. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with most of the things implied by your questions, but I am puzzled by the statement above which I've bolded (or should that be "emboldened"? :) )

    The "Catholic Encyclopedia" says this about the 1611 Authorised/King James Version:
    Name given to the English translation of the Bible produced by the Commission appointed by James I, and in consequence often spoken of as "King James's Bible". It is in general use among English-speaking non-Catholics.
    Of course, I am not saying that no Roman Catholic has ever used the KJV, but (unless I have misunderstood you) you seem to be saying that it was in general use among Catholics.
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    This is one aspect of the 'perfect preservation of translation' theory that puzzles me. If God could preserve His word in the hands of the translators, why did He not preserve His word in the hands of typesetters and printers? Were they out of His control?
     
    #7 NaasPreacher (C4K), Jul 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 8, 2011
  8. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    isn't those in KJVO camp madically saying the same for KJV that we would say for the original manuscripts we say Greek/hebrew texts were inspired/inerrant/infallible while they say same for English version KJV!
     
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,195
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    I am not KJVO but I would like to respond.
    Because "inerrant" means "without error of fact." It has never meant that a particular translation was letter perfect. That is a late anomaly invented by men ignorant of Hebrew, Greek, and translation.
    Several reasons. The Geneva bible had marginal notes that were contrary to King James' political philosophy and was preferred over the "official" Bishops Bible which was nothing more than a revision of a revision of a revision of the Tyndale. The "authorization" of the AV was a political act, not a religious one.

    (Also, by capitalizing the word "Word" you play into the hands of ignorant men like Steve Anderson who claims the KJV is Jesus. When talking about the bible the word "word" should not be capitalized. :))
    Preservation applies to Hebrew and Greek copies of the inspired originals, and does not imply letter perfection, but factual purity.
    Psalm 12 is talking about the quality of God's pronouncements, not of copies of the apographs nor of translations.
    Pagan King? Since when did being a Scots Presbyterian constitute being a pagan?
    With the understanding that it was NOT scripture and was segregated from both the OT and NT, unlike RCC bibles.
    The AV was never officially recognized by the RCC and was never given an Imprimatur.
    So was the KJV, for 400 years. And your point is?
    The KJV was revised 3 times. The Tyndale was revised 5 times, and the Geneva 4 times.
    Proverbs 8:15 "By me kings reign and rulers make laws that are just;"
    First James never got around to authorizing the finished product. Secondly James was the head of the Church of England ("defender of the faith") and as such could decide which bible was to be the official bible of the CoE. He did so.
     
    #9 TCassidy, Jul 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 8, 2011
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The KJV was revised more than 3 times. The KJV was revised in 1629 [CAmbridge], again in 1638 [Cambridge], again in 1743 [Cambridge], again in 1769 [Oxford], again in 1829 [Oxford], again in 1873 [Cambridge], again in 2005 [Cambridge], and there were changes/revisions introduced in other years. F. S. Parris made most of the revisions in the 1743 Cambridge edition that was later found in the 1762 Cambridge. It was in the 1829 Oxford edition that over 75 places where the 1769 Oxford has "LORD" [Jehovah] were revised to "Lord" [Adonai], and it was this edition that first changed "God" at 2 Samuel 12:22 to "GOD." It was Scrivener's 1873 Cambridge edition that first revised "priest's custom" at 1 Samuel 2:13 to "priests' custom" and that revision was later introduced into other Oxford and Cambridge editions. There have been a number of revisions made in various years in KJV editions after 1769. The American Bible Society made a revision of the KJV that was published in 1852.

    What is your documentation or evidence for the assertion that the text of the Geneva Bible was revised 4 times? They are usually considered two editions of the Geneva Bible: the 1560 edition and the later 1599 edition that had the O. T. of the 1560 edition with the 1576 revision of the Geneva N. T. and translation of Beza's Latin New Testament by Laurence Tomson. There are likely a few variations introduced by printers in the many editions of the Geneva Bible.
    What source identifies any serious revisions of the text of the Geneva Bible that compare to the known revisions of the KJV in editions such as the 1629 Cambridge, the 1638 Cambridge, the 1743 Cambridge, the 1769 Oxford, etc.?
     
    #10 Logos1560, Jul 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 8, 2011
  11. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    There are more than two editions of the KJV with a number of variatons in print today.
    Cambridge prints at least three varying editions: the Cambridge Standard Text Edition, the Cambridge Concord edition, the 2005 Cambridge edition edited by David Norton. Another Cambridge edition: the 1873 edition edited by Scrivener was reprinted by Zondervan several times after 2000, and it is also presently printed in some editions by Hendrickson. That edition has hundreds of differences from the typical Cambridge or Oxford edition printed today. The American Bible Society prints a KJV edition today that differs both from the three or four Cambridge editions and the present Oxford editions.
     
  12. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,548
    Likes Received:
    212
    Seems to me, just sayin' here, that there's a distinction between "King James Only" and those who, for whatever reason, believe "King James Inspired."

    By "King James Inspired" I mean those that go to the extreme of saying we shouldn't use any version but the King James, not even the Hebrew and Greek texts.

    And then again, I guess you could say that "King James Only" means just that, and includes the "King James Inspired" crowd; and those that use the King James, but also believe in using the Hebrew and Greek texts, could be considered "King James Preferred"....

    Labels confuse me....
     
  13. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I've always enjoyed that unintentionally funny line from Ergun Caner :"I'm not a Calvinist;I'm a Baptist!"

    Seriously,in James White's book :The King James Only Controversy --he breaks down a number of categories of KJ fans along a line of gradations.
     
  14. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    By very definition though...

    KJVO IF you mean that this is ONLY reliable English version today.....

    KJVP would believe KJV best version, modern ones "OK" KJV MUCH better!
     
  15. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    It would be more accurate to say that there are 10 to 20 varying editions of the KJV in print today.

    Here are some examples of variations in editions of the KJV in just one brief Old Testament book--Ezra.

    Ezra 1:2 [see Lev. 14:55]
    a house [1873, 2005 Cambridge] (1819, 1829, 31843, 1853, 1855, 1894, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1846 Portland) (1968 Royal) (1975 Open) (1984, 1991 AMB) (LASB) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010 HEND) (NHPB) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
    an house (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

    Ezra 2:2 [Mispar--1560 Geneva, 1602 Bishops]
    Mispar (1679, 1715, 1747, 1754, 1765, 1774, 1788, 1799, 1803, 1804 Oxford, Oxford Classic, SSB) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 2005 Cambridge, CCR, CSTE, DKJB] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1617, 1634, 1672, 1705, 1711, 1767, 1772, 1879, 1976 London} (1638, 1722, 1764, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1820, 1858 Edinburgh) (1866 Glasgow) (1762 Dublin) (1782 Aitken) (1813 Carey) (1966 SC) (1968 Royal) (1975 Open) (1997 NPC) (RSB) (1990’s, 2010 LCBP) (1999 Collins) (DSB) (2006 PENG) (SFCB) (2011 HEND)
    Mizpar (1728, 1768, 1769 Oxford, SRB, NPB) [1743, 1747, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1795, 1800, 1817, 1822, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1873, 1887 Cambridge] {1747, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1817, 1824, 1825, 1838, 1877 London} (1793, 1810, 1842, 1851 Edinburgh) (1791 Collins) (1791 Thomas)

    Ezra 2:26 [see Neh. 7:30] [Gaba--1560 Geneva]
    Geba (1975, 1978 GIB) (1999 Collins) (2010 BEAMS)
    Gaba (1747, 1754, 1765, 1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1743, 1747, 1760, 1762, 1765, 1767, 1769, 1778, 1790, 1795, 1800, 1817, 1822, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1842, 1844, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1873, 1887, 2005 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB]

    Ezra 2:59
    their fathers’ house [1873, 2005 Cambridge] (2000, 2002 ZOND) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010 HEND) (NHPB) (1833 WEB)
    their father’s house (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

    Ezra 2:65
    besides (1747, 1754, 1765, 1768, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1777, 1783, 1804 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 2005 Cambridge] {1634, 1711, 1750, 1760, 1764, 1767, 1772 London} (1722, 1764, 1769, 1787, 1791, 1793, 1810, 1820 Edinburgh) (1782 Aitken) (1791 Collins) (1802 Carey) (1853, 1854, 1855, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1826 Boston) (1832 PSE) (1846 Portland) (1854 Harding) (WMCRB) (1984 AMG) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
    beside (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

    Ezra 2:69 [pieces--1560 Geneva; pound--1602 Bishops]
    five thousand pounds (1772 Oxford) (1791 Collins) (1810, 1826, 1828 Boston) (1818 Holbrook) (Clarke) (1819, 1829, 1843, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1832 PSE) (1846 Portland) (1854 Harding) (1911 TCE) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1968 Royal) (1975 Open) (1976 BH) (CSB) (RRB) (WMCRB) (LASB) (1833 WEB)
    five thousand pound (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

    Ezra 3:11 [sang--1560 Geneva]
    sung (1715, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1765, 1768 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1817, 1873 Cambridge] {1611, 1672, 1711, 1767 London} (1722, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (HPB) (2008, 2010 HEND) (NHPB)
    sang (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1747 London}

    Ezra 3:11 [toward--1560 Geneva]
    towards (1679, 1715, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1765, 1768, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1817, 1873, 2005 Cambridge] {1611, 1614, 1617, 1634, 1672, 1705, 1747, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1772 London} (1638, 1722, 1756, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1782 Aitken) (1791 Collins) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1832 PSE) (1854 Harding) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010 HEND) (NHPB) (1842 Bernard)
    toward (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1613 London}

    Ezra 4:10 [Asnappar--1560 Geneva; Asnapper--1602 Bishops]
    Asnappar (1771, 1772, 1783, 1787, 1804 Oxford, Oxford Classic, SSB) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1760, 1765, 1778, 1800, 1873, 2005 Cambridge, CCR, CSTE, DKJB] {1611, 1613, 1634, 1705, 1976 London} (1638, 1722, 1756, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1782 Aitken) (1810 Boston) (1815 Walpole) (1966 SC) (1968 Royal) (1975 Open) (1990’s, 2010 LCBP) (1999 Collins) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (DSB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010 HEND) (NHPB)
    Asnapar (1773, 1778 Oxford)
    Asnapper (1728, 1747, 1754, 1765, 1768, 1769 Oxford, SRB, NPB) [1762, 1763B, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1773, 1790, 1795, 1817, 1822, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1887 Cambridge] {1614, 1617, 1672, 1711, 1747, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1772, 1795, 1817, 1824, 1825, 1838, 1860, 1877, 1879 London} (1789, 1791, 1793, 1810, 1820, 1842, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1866 Glasgow) (1762 Dublin)

    Ezra 4:11 [Thy servants the men--1560 Geneva]
    Thy servants [1629, 1637, 1817 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1617, 1634, 1672 London} (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1832 PSE) (1854 Harding)
    Thy servants the men (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

    Ezra 4:13 [be buylt--1560 Geneva]
    be built [2005 Cambridge] (EB) (E-R) (2006 PENG) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
    be builded (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

    Ezra 6:4 [expences--1560 Geneva; expenses--1602 Bishops]
    expences (1679, 1768, 1769, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1777, 1778, 1783, 1784, 1787, 1795, 1803, 1804, 1810, 1812, 1819, 1821, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1850, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880, 1885 Oxford, NPB) [1683, 1743, 1747, 1762, 1768, 1769, 1778, 1790, 1795, 1800, 1817, 1822, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1873, 1877 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1617, 1634, 1705, 1747, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1824, 1825, 1838, 1860, 1879 London} (1722, 1756, 1764, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1810, 1820, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1866 Glasgow) (1762 Dublin) (1782 Aitken) (1791 Collins) (1810 Boston) (1813 Carey) (1816 Albany) (1895 NPC) (1897 ABU) (1975, 1978 GID) (TCRB) (Nave’s) (Dake’s) (RRB) (1985 Open) (1987 Dugan) (1989, 1991, 2003 TN) (1999 Collins) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (DSB) (HPB) (2008, 2010 HEND) (2010 LCBP) (2010 BEAMS)
    expenses (1728, 1747, 1754, 1765, 1928, 1977 Oxford, 1952 PE, SRB, SSB, Oxford Classic) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1760, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 2005 Cambridge, CCR, CSTE, DKJB] {1672, 1711, 1767, 1795, 1877, 1976 London} (1638 Edinburgh) (1791 Thomas) (1815 Walpole) (1818 Holbrook) (Clarke) (1819, 1829, 1843, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1963, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1826, 1828 Boston) (1832 PSE) (1854 Harding) (1911 TCE) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1966 SC) (1973 REG) (GPB) (1975 Open) (1972, 1976, 1987 TN) (1976 BH) (1979, 1996 Holman) (WMCRB) (1984, 1991, 2008 AMG) (1987, 1988 IBS) (LASB) (FWP) (CHSB) (1984, 1994 ZOND) (1997 NPC) (LPB) (VB) (EB) (RSB) (LCBP) (MSB) (Life) (ROASB) (SFCB) (2008 Pilot) (2010 BRO) (ASB) (2011 Barbour) (2011 HEND) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)

    Ezra 7:14
    counsellers (1715, 1728, 1769, 1787, 1791, 1792, 1795, 1798, 1803, 1804 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1743, 1747, 1760, 1765, 1768, 1769, 1773, 1778, 1790, 1795, 1800, 1822, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1873, 1887 Cambridge] {1611, 1614, 1617, 1672, 1705, 1711, 1817, 1824, 1825 London} (1638, 1722, 1756, 1764 Edinburgh) (1999 Collins) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (MSB) (DSB) (HPB) (2008, 2010 HEND) (NHPB) (2010 LCBP)
    counsellours (1679 Oxford) [1683 Cambridge] {1613, 1634 London}
    counselors (1954, 1957, 1963, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1975 Open) (CSB) (RRB) (WMCRB) (1991 AMG) (KJRLB) (E-R) (1833 WEB)
    counsellors (1747, 1754, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1778, 1783, 1784, 1788, 1810, 1812, 1821, 1828 Oxford, SRB, SSB, Oxford Classic, NPB) [1762, 1763B, 1767, 2005 Cambridge, CCR, CSTE, DKJB] {1747, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1795, 1838, 1860, 1877, 1879, 1976 London} (1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1810, 1820, 1842, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1866 Glasgow) (1762 Dublin) (1782 Aitken) (1791 Collins) (1791 Thomas) (1802 Carey) (1810, 1826 Boston)

    Ezra 7:18 [and gold--1560 Geneva, 1568 & 1602 Bishops]
    and gold (1679, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1765, 1768, 1772 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1873, 2005 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1617, 1634, 1672, 1705, 1747, 1750, 1760, 1764, 1767, 1772 London} (1638, 1722, 1756, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1782 Aitken) (1791 Collins) (1810 Boston) (1813 Carey) (1829 ABS) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010 HEND) (NHPB) (1833 WEB)
    and the gold (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1760, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

    Ezra 9:3
    astonished (1754, 1758, 1765, 1768, 1771, 1778 Oxford) [1743, 1747, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 2005 Cambridge] {1747, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1772 London} (1782 Aitken) (1819, 1829, 1843, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1826 Boston) (1832 PSE) (1846 Portland) (1854 Harding) (1911 TCE) (1968 Royal) (1975 Open) (CSB) (RRB) (WMCRB) (LASB) (1984, 1991 AMG) (KJRLB) (DSB) (E-R) (2006 PENG) (1842 Bernard)
    astonied (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1637, 1638, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    And no KJVO can name his/her "perfect edition" and PROVE it perfect.
     
  17. dcorbett

    dcorbett
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,411
    Likes Received:
    1
  18. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    You can't be serious. You are citing Gail Riplinger as a credible source?!

    G.A.R. God and Riplinger?!

    Please do some vital research before misleading even more people who may think G.A.R. is telling the truth.
     
  19. dcorbett

    dcorbett
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,411
    Likes Received:
    1

    I followed along and looked at an NIV, and the verses she states are missing ARE MISSING.
     
  20. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,193
    Likes Received:
    374
    They are not. They are in print in black and white. They are in mine and I could grab any verse that you say is not in there and type it here with nothing more than my NIV.

    Oh and from what I've seen of Gail Riplinger, she's a very dishonest person and really has no right being an "expert" in the translational issues.
     
    #20 annsni, Jul 13, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...