Splitting Hairs?

Splitting hairs,split ends,splitting lunch,splitting headache ... ok.I'm splitting.

 

Good post, BTW.

Incidentally, I suggest that the variance of I Jn. 5:12 is miniscule, compared to the fact that most 'modern' printings of the so-called 'KJV' leave out more than 10 books entirely, which little "inconvenient truth" sure doesn't seem to get much traction, at least here on the Baptist Board .

Ed

 

Hello again C4K

You asked.......

Well go ahead. I would like to see that.

For months now, I have been trying to get somebody(anybody), to take a stand on a single Bible(of their choice), as being “God’s perfectly preserved Word”.

But nobody will.
--------------------------------------------------
As I have stated before, this is Satan’s plan.

To convince us, that somehow God was unable to preserve His Word for us.

 

Watch out.

You're gonna' be beside yourself, again. :tongue3: [FONT=verdana,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serif]

Ed
[/FONT]

 

Thats because others will not try to make a choice based on opinion and human reasoning as you do.

God's perfectly preserved word, the 1611 KJV according to you, of course included the Apocrypha and referenced it daily readings and marginal notes. Do you hold to those books?

In you signature you use - ' And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.'

Yet the 1611 KJV, which you are on record as believing is perfect down to every jot and tittle has - 'And ye shall know the Trueth, and the Trueth shall make you free. '

'Jot and tittle' perfection would not allow for change the case of the letter 't' or the dropping of the 'e' in Trueth.

Why are you changing God's perfectly preserved word?

Do you believe in 'jot and tittle' perfection or just 'sorta' perfection in translation?

 

C4K

I had hoped, that you would have been willing, to apply those verses, to your Bible.

But alas, you didn’t.

 

I admit that my Bible is a translation.

Will you answer my questions about your perfectly preserved 1611 KJV? Is it perfect down to every jot and tittle or not?

Just curious, as you have claimed the perfection of the 1611 KJV, do you carry that to church, or do you carry an edition that has added to God's word by inserting, 'of God' in 1 John 5v12?

 

Well, I'm not C4K, but I do want to wade in here.

Two questions: Uh- what took God so long for Him to remember this promise, if this doesn't hold true for Aldhelm or Antheim (~700), Bede (735), Caedmon (~800-1000), WSX (~990), WYC (1384), WYC-P (1395), TYN (1525, ~1532), MCB (1535), MATT (1537), GREAT (1539), GEN (1560), BISH (1568), or D/R (1582, 1609), since all these are 'English' Bibles, in whole or in part?

Merely the time from the WSX to the KJV is half again as long as from 1611 to 2009, already. And the WYC was already around for more than half as long as any KJV of any flavor has been with us, even, and by 1611, had already been around for 227 years. From 700 to 1600 is only a hundred years short of a Millenium.

Second, assuming you do, in fact, claim this for the KJV of 1611, do you even use the one you claim? I'll even allow you any "updated edition" you may choose, as long as it contains all the books of the 1611?

That means the Apocrypha, BTW. For if your Bible doesn't have these, then you have a mutilated copy of the 1611 KJV, regardless of any claim to the contrary.

FTR, I find that more than a little disingenuous, to say the least.

Ed

 

SL,there was no immaculate conception of the 1611 Anglican Version.It's a 'version' of the Bible.It's one form of God's Word -- not the only begotten of God.It's not the Bible in the singular sense.It didn't suddenly appear fresh from the heavens one day without spot or wrinkle.It borrowed a lot from Tyndale's Bible.And to various degrees from others which followed : Coverdale's,Matthew Bible,Taverner's,Great Bible,Geneva, Bishop's and Rheim's-Douay among other sources.

The miraculous is missing from the saga of the KJV for you to claim it has such a vaunted status.The Lord of course superintended the enterprize as he has the TNIV and NLT -- but there wasn't exactly the parting of the waters.

Why did so many authentic Christians reject the 1611 for so long?It only had superior popularity from 1700-1952 or so.

Comments stilllearning?

 

...and...

I completely agree with your postion , Roger. However, from the evidence of most other translations published before 1611, it seems the translators of that magnificent work we know as the 1611 KJV left "of God" out of 1 John 5:12.

But even though it left out "of God," the 1611 KJV was just as much the word of God as previous and later translations. However, stilllearning's claim of jot-and-tittle perfection in the 1611 KJV is absolutely bogus. If God were going to provide a jot-and-tittle perfect Bible translation why would He permit "printing errors" and "misspellings" to mar the perfection of that translation? Doesn't make a lick of sense...

 

That was part of my point. I think that the only version that agreed with the 1611 was a Catholic bible. Does that mean that I am going to dismiss the amazing translation work of 1611 - in no wise! But it does put a damper of jot and tittle perfectionism.

Those who hold to 1769 jot and tittle perfectionism, and there are some, have a much stronger argument for their POV. At least they can stick to it.

 

As we've often pointed out before, NO English Bible translation is completely without error.

 

Hello everyone

I woke up this morning, and was unable to brush my teeth:
Because when I got on line, so many of you had “put words in my mouth”!

Historically(on BB), I have repeatedly stated that I totally reject double inspiration:
Therefore, statements like “there was no immaculate conception of the 1611 Anglican Version”, are painting the wrong picture of my view.

When pressed a few months ago, I stated that I was taking a stand on the 1769 KJV:
But in the same breath, I said that there were many other great Bibles of that time:
(William Tyndale's Bible), (Miles Coverdale's Bible), (John Wycliffe’s Bible), (The Bishop's Bible), (The Geneva Bible) etc.
So in the strictest since, I am not really KJVO.

As for God’s promise to His people, to preserved His word: God has kept his promise, and he did not wait until 1611 to do it.
--------------------------------------------------
Now, when it comes to statements that I have made about the “1611 KJV”,:
In post #19 of this thread, Thermodynamics asked me a specific question, and here was my specific answer...........

--------------------------------------------------
Now, my original challenge still stands: (Post #63)

Anyone who takes a stand on there Bible(one Bible), throws a monkey wrench into Satan’s plan.

But if you are unable, to take such a stand, [ungracious attack on fellow believers snipped]

 

Hello Rippon

You asked........

This is a great question, and I am glad to answer it.

And I thank you for bringing up subject of “authentic Christians”; Because I greatly value their opinions, because every authentic Christian throughout history, has had the indwelling Holy Spirit, that guided them into all truth.
--------------------------------------------------
All those Christians in the 1600's, who used English Bibles, had a handful of good Bibles to choose from(the ones I mentioned in my last response), and the LORD wonderfully blessed them, in there study.

But by the late 1600's, the KJV had started leaving those other Bible’s behind, because it was being repeatedly updated, with spelling corrections etc., therefore by 1700(as you stated), it became the top dog.

Now, for the next 250 years, “every authentic Christian”(who spoke English), recognized the KJV as God’s perfectly preserved Word. This is why, I am making such a big deal, out of this issue.
--------------------------------------------------
But as you pointed out, the KJV only had “superior popularity until about 1952".
This is very significant!

First of all, “superior popularity”, doesn’t mean all that much today, because of the condition of today’s Church.

But take a look back in recent Church history, from 1952 until 2009.
We can clearly see, that as more & more of God’s people, turned away from the KJV, to the MV’s, that the Church(local Churches), has become more and more worldly.
--------------------------------------------------
Now some might ask:
Since I support the repeated updates of the KJV, during the 1600's, why can’t I support the Bible being “updated” today.
Well the answer is in this post.

Today’s Christendom, has become so ungodly and wicked, that I wouldn’t trust them to write a Gospel tract, let alone update the Bible.

 

Hi Keith M


You said.......

Well lets forget about English.

Do you believe that “any Bible”(in any language), existing today, is completely without error?
--------------------------------------------------
If you answer “no”, than you need to take it up with God, and ask Him why He allowed His Word to be lost.

 

How opinion filled can you get. You really think that the English speaking church was godly until 1960 or so?

 

This is a spurious attack - no one here believes that God's word is lost. Talk about putting words in people's mouths!

 

Do you? Without any error at all? Do you really believe that any version is perfect down to every word, letter, and punctuation mark?

If not, are you willing to ask God why he cannot preserve His word from the proofreaders and printers and why He has allowed His word to be lost?

 

I would suggest that anything truly qualifying as a paraphrase that claims to have been derived from a foreign language is indeed a two-step process: the first step is understanding (virtually, if not actually, translating) the source word(s) thus transporting it/them into its/their nearest equivalent of the intended language; and then secondly, converting (usually for clarifying or simplifying) the now received word(s) into another/other term(s) within the same target language.

 

There are many who have received Christ today because someone published a modern Gospel tract. I glad people with your attitude didn't dissuade them from producing those tracts.