the easy answer to which bible is the real one

Discussion in 'All Other Discussions' started by Rginald Woodbridge, Apr 20, 2016.

  1. Rginald Woodbridge

    Rginald Woodbridge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2016
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    4
    I would like to address the issue of which bible is most accurate....The answer is so easy when you look at the real information....The Authorised K.J.V. IS WITHOUT DOUBT GODS INFALLIBLE word given to mankind...which many have corrupted and hoodwinked multitudes....The k.j.v.bought the world out of the dark ages.Now with its demise and Satan not taking it away.He has confused so many believe the great lie he has successfully sown into The body of Christ and destroyed many lives.....The choice is so easy..do you believe in the one manuscript that westcottt and horte supported...such learned men?.Ha they believe in Purgatory....Founded the Legion Of Mary[ making Mary CO-Mediator with Christ] organisation and denied a tri-une Godhead.....just for starters....yet the R.S.V. was the gold standard of bibles when it arrived.They sowed doubt on the integrity of The K.J.V...useing one lie after another to support their claims......most bible versions come from the erronius text of westcott and horte...which actually was not theirs but it was produced in Alexandria in Egypt..at the school of the gnostics....thats the text that 99percent of bible translations come from.....but historical truth can easily bought into question by some one with a computer and can slowly but surely put doubt into Truth and the ones who try to google and searh useing other searh sites are even more confused. we should look at the bible itself and ask why differences are all anti-the K.J.V....SO LETS LOOK AT SOME OF THEM.1John5;7...is famous as it says in most other bibles a footnote saying the verse was not in earliest or best manuscripts.....Of course they never tell you exactly which manuscripts...WHY?...easy...there isnt any such manuscripts except the 618 textus receptus manuscripts that are where the K.J.V.comes from......so what I am saying is the truth of the matter is do you believe the 618 textus receptus manuscripts that say what the K.J.V.says or the one manuscript from Egypt printed in the fourth century by the gnostics that dont believe in Jesus as part of the Godhead....easy.out of mouth of two or three witnesses.....oh yes westcott hortes manuscript was called textus vaticanus[when i was young..till the catholics saw we could use that verse and christians would never tolerate useing a textus vaticanus manuscript....so they just got on line and started swallowing up the truth and now no more textus vaticanus....on line..they say its an obscure manuscript locked up in Vatican......sure,but till about 20 years ago it was public knowledge..not now..I intend to go on and give much more so sharpen up your swords and prepare to dislike Reg Woodbridge even more....who cares if I leave out spaces...dont use spellcheck....dont write educated enough....well some on this site do....but why not come along and maybe learn somthings you need to know....Look at psalm12;6-7...in k.j.v.and other bibles..and compare2Corinthians2;17...and Revelation22;19......the N.I.V.doesnt know difference betwwen a book and a tree...silly if you get cast out of the book...you go to hell...Revelation20;15...Virginia Mollenkot who oversaw that work was a lesbian and had her mother as her spirit guide.....but of course thats been computer info changed to......so what your going to have to do is start deciding why all the textual criticism is only against one bible.......The word of god...without blemish...Even Acts12.4...the word easter is no mistake.......if you were real smart you would see why.........if not I will tell you next time...from Reg Woodbridge...A true believer.
     
  2. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,159
    Likes Received:
    368
    Oh the misinformation is so glaring it's kind of funny. It's interesting how people just buy into the conspiracy theories and don't actually look at the truth - that God is good, God is sovereign and God has been able to keep His Word through the ages - before 1611 and since. He didn't suddenly go to work in the 17th century and then sit back and think "Well, that's good enough." Praise God for the great men and women who have worked tirelessly to make sure that we have the most accurate rendering of the Word of God in our language and in other languages as well. We have one of them on this board and I've seen the hard agonizing work he's done to just translate one book and how the love of God's Word has brought an accurate translation to the Japanese people.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Rolfe

    Rolfe
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    5,294
    Likes Received:
    391
    Mankind, eh? And for those who do not read English?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Rolfe

    Rolfe
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    5,294
    Likes Received:
    391
    Had a thought. I guess groups like Wycliffe Bible Translatiors and people like the gentleman Annsni mentioned (I think I know who) are wasting their time.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,086
    Likes Received:
    218
    1) Which version was the infallible Word in the 1500's?
    2) Which KJV do you currently read, the 1611 or the 1769
    3) Is there any concern that the translators were Anglican?
    4) Do you believe that a person can be saved from a non- KJV Bible?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  6. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,189
    Likes Received:
    611
    I have not seen such an elegant defense of the KJV in all my life. Bravo Rginald!

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,144
    Likes Received:
    1,308
    The dark ages were from the 11th through the 13th centuries. The KJV was published in the early 17th century. You missed by about 400 years.
    Actually they liked both Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, along with about 25 other manuscripts that read similarly to the two above.
    Uh, well, actually, no, they didn't. And they were both confessional Anglicans.
    Uh, well, actually, no, they didn't. Both were Trinitarian.
    Wrong again. Only one English bible version was translated from the text of Westcott and Hort, the English Revised Version of 1882.
    Nope. Out of the approximately 200 English versions only 1 was translated from the text of Westcott and Hort. That is 1/2 of 1%.
    Uh, well, actually the KJV is translated from a text which is representative of the Byzantine textform which accounts for around 5355 Greek manuscripts. And the comma is missing from all of them except for 5 manuscripts of questionable origin.
    No, their primary text was Codex Sinaiticus. Their secondary text was Codex Vaticanus. Neither is a text. And if you don't know the difference between a text, a manuscript, and a codex maybe you should find something else to discuss. That way you will avoid being publicly humiliated. (Oh, and, by the way, there is no "e" on "Hort." If you want to claim to be an expert on him you may want to learn to spell his name correctly.)
    Anyone with at least a 4th grade education?
    Yes. Okay. I looked. What does God promising to preserve the poor and needy from their oppressors have to do with the KJV?
    Virginia Mollenkot didn't oversee anything. She was a Professor of English Literature and served as a style consultant on the NIV.

    Please, try to get at least one of your points right. So far you are batting 0.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Internet Theologian

    Internet Theologian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,224
    Likes Received:
    986
    The OP appears to come across as since some use other modern, accurate versions it means they're not true? I hope that is not the implication.

    You really shouldn't knock the other versions that good, godly and sound in the faith believers employ. I happen to like the YLT, ESV, NASBU, KJV, NKJV.

    You may also want to read The King James Only Controversy by Dr. James White, it is a good solid factual read and will educate you on the issue. :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Rginald Woodbridge

    Rginald Woodbridge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2016
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    4
    first of all there is no such thing as a K.J. OF 1769........THERE WERE 4 VERSIONS PRINTED FROM 1611 TO AROUND 1640...NOT PRINTED BECAUSE OF ANY MISTAKE IN TEXT....because England was moving spelling from Gothic to todays same English which was in our bible today....it was spelling..not word changes...if you wanted the infallible word in the 1500s you would have to find the textus receptus manuscripts.....which was fairly easy..despite catholic church executing anyone who had one as the catholic bible was latin and was the one Constantine the emperor of Rome decrred was the only one that was allowed...Dark ages ensued as the word was taken from the people...catholicsm ruled till the K.J.V. came available.......The translatorts were indeed 2 Anglican but Highchurch Anglican which is very pro-catholic and is dedicated to restoring the Anglican church to mother Rome again.....westcott and horte were seducers of the truth.......also in the 5 man revision committee were a non practing Jew...a UNITARIAN [thats why 1John5;7 is omitted in there work called the Revised version.....he didnt believe in a tri-une God....and finally a catholic Jesuist.........so there is the 5 man revisson commmittee.....Do I believe a person can be saVED FROM A NON k.j.v.....Yes I do..and was myself......however its the journey we must finish our course.......and if you feed to people a corrupt seed of the word of God..to grow on......thats another question...its not once saved always saved.......so you better get fed the truth as your only spiritual food is Gods word.......WHY DO YOU THINK SATAN gave you so many truths......however they contradict each other even...there are over 150 versions that say......in John7;8-10 Jesus saying ..you go up to the feast I am not going...so after saying he was not going he went...so those bibles are a lie.........Jesus said himself ..a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.Mathew7;17.....so I would say the chances of keeping your salvation were a lot less sure..of course there are those who believe in foolishness like once saved always saved.......and the new covenant clearly states the end times will be a falling away time....I can say this.Without a mistake free word of God .then none of us are really saved....I am sure of my salvation..I believe we have such a bible...and I notice that some of The american publishers of the K.J.V....have so subtley put some alterations in....found a couple...The strongs concordance has been altered..to now include all versions not exclusivly the K.J.V...read the preface........now as the ownership of it changed hands and the copyrite sold with the ownership..Just like Samuel Nelson publishers...has changed hands so many times ..now owned by non K.J.V.believers.....if you want a pure untoched K.J.V.you will have to find one printed in England with the little letter from the publishers in the front......denouncing Rome...its British law to keep the true K.J.V...Not so in the U.S.A...WHERE ITS NOT PROTECTED.....also may I add....In the days before the cross...when Jesus went into synogogues and opened to scripture..it was written in Hebrew........if you wanted to know Gods word it was only available then in Hebrew.............to get saved you either had to know Hebrew..or be taught Gods word by someone who did........today yes the K.J.V. was written from the greek into the most spoken language on Earth today....ENGLISH..even in china english is taugfht to all schoolchildren..India its same...everyones second language.....,but today more people can speak English than all other languages.....in short...the K.J.V is very easy to get hold of......bible3s like the .N.I.V....are more popular....but with over 5000 changes in the new testament alone is definately easy proved erronious.......love from Reg Woodbridge....a true believer
     
  10. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,159
    Likes Received:
    368
    You may need to do some studying on the great KJV of the Bible. Unless yours looks like this: http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible, you have a newer version, definitely not one from the 17th century.

    "The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632."

    http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,144
    Likes Received:
    1,308
    So much error, so little time to correct it all.
    The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, both of which had license to print King James Version bibles in England, sought to produce an updated standard text. First of the two was the Cambridge edition of 1760, the culmination of twenty-years work by Francis Sawyer Parris. This 1760 edition was reprinted without change in 1762 and in John Baskerville's folio edition of 1763. This was effectively superseded by the 1769 Oxford edition, edited by Benjamin Blayney, though with comparatively few changes from Parris's edition; but which became the Oxford standard text, and is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.

    The Protestant Reformation occurred from 1517 when Martin Luther nailed the 99 Theses on the door of All Saints' Church (Schlosskirche) in Wittenberg through 1535 when Henry VIII "divorced" the Church of England from the Church of Rome. England, and most of northern Europe, had been Protestant since around 1550. The KJV didn't come along until 1611.

    5 Man? Uh, try 50 man!

    Old Testament Company.

    The Right Rev. Edward Harold Brown, D. D., Bishop of Winchester (Chairman), Farnham Castle, Surrey.
    The Right Rev. Lord Athur Charles Hervey, D. D., Bishop of Bath and Wells, Palace, Wells, Somerset.
    The Right Rev. Alfred Ollivant, D. D., Bishop of Llandaff, Bishop's Court, Llandaff.
    The Very Rev. Robert Payne Smith, D. D., Dean of Canterbury, Deanery, Canterbury.
    The Ven. Benjamin Harrison, M. A., Archdeacon of Maidstone, Canon of Canterbury, Canterbury.
    The Rev. William Lindsay Alexander, D. D., Professor of Theology, Congregational Church Hall, Edinburgh.
    Robert L. Bensly, Esq., Fellow and Hebrew Lecturer, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.
    The Rev. John Birrell, Professor of Oriental Languages, St. Andrew's, Scotland.
    Frank Chance, Esq., M. D., Burleigh House, Sydenham Hill, London.
    Thomas Chenery, Esq., Reform Club, London, S. W.
    The Rev. T. K. Cheyne, Fellow and Hebrew Lecturer, Balliol College, Oxford.
    The Rev. A. B. Davidson, D. D., Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College, Edinburgh.
    The Rev. George Douglas, D. D., Professor of Hebrew and Principal of Free Church College, Glasgow.
    S. R. Driver, esq., Tutor of New College, Oxford.
    The Rev. C. J. Elliott, Win-kfield Vicarage, Windsor.
    The Rev. Frederick Field, D. D., Carlton Terrace, Heigham, Norwich.
    The Rev. John Dury Geden, Professor of Hebrew, Wesleyan College, Didsbury, Manchester.
    The Rev. Christian D. Ginsburg, LL.D., Workingham, Berks.
    The Rev. Frederick William Gotch, D. D., Principal of the Baptist College, Bristol.
    The Rev. William Kay, D. D., Great Leghs' Rectory, Chelmsford.
    The Rev. Stanley Leathes, D. D., Professor of Hebrew, King's College, London.
    The Rev. Professor J. R. Lumby, D. D., Fellow of St. Catharine's College, Cambridge.
    The Very Rev. John James Stewart Perowne, D. D., Dean of Peterborough, Deanery, Peterborough.
    The Rev. A. H. Sayce, Fellow and Tutor of Queen's College, Oxford.
    The Rev. William Robertson Smith, Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College, Aberdeen.
    William Wright, LL. D., Professor of Arabic, Cambridge.
    William Aldis Wright Esq. (Secretary), Bursar of Trinity College, Cambridge.

    New Testament Company.

    The Right Rev. Charles John Ellicott, D. D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol (Chairman), Palace, Gloucester.
    The Right Rev. George Moberly, D. C. L., Bishop of Salisbury, Palace, Salisbury.
    The Very Rev. Edward Henry Bickersteth, D. D., Prolocutor, Dean of Lichfield, Deanery, Lichfield.
    The Very Rev. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, D. D., Dean of Westminster, Deanery, Westminster.
    The Very Rev. Robert Scott, D. D., Dean of Rochester, Deanery, Rochester.
    The Very Rev. Joseph Williams Blakesley, B. D., Dean of Lincoln, Deanery, Lincoln.
    The Most Rev. Richard Chenevix Trench, D. D., Archbishop of Dublin, Palace, Dublin.
    The Right Rev. Joseph Lightfoot, D. D., LL.D., Bishop of Durham.
    The Right Rev. Charles Wordsworth, D. C. L., Bishop of St. Andrew's, Bishopshall, St. Andrew's.
    The Rev. Joseph Angus, D. D., President of the Baptist College, Regent's Park, London.
    The Rev. David Brown, D. D., Principal of the Free Church College, Aberdeen.
    The Rev. Fenton John Anthony Hort, D. D., Fellow of Emmanual College, Cambridge.
    The Rev. William Gilson Humphry, Vicarage, St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, London, W. C.
    The Rev. Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D. D., Canon of Ely and Regius Professor of Greek, The Elms, Cambridge.
    The Ven. William Lee, D. D., Archdeacon of Dublin, Dublin.
    The Rev. William Milligan, D. D., Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism, Aberdeen.
    The Rev. William F. Moulton, D. D., Master of the Leys School, Cambridge.
    The Rev. Samuel Newth, D. D., Principal of New College, Hampstead, London.
    The Ven. Edwin Palmer, D. D., Archdeacon of Oxford, Christ Church, Oxford.
    The Rev. Alexander Roberts, D. D., Professor of Humanity, St. Andrew's.
    The Rev. Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, LL.D., Prebendary, Hendon Vicarage, London, N. W.
    The Rev. George Vance. Smith, D. D., Parade, Carmarthen.
    The Rev. Charles John Vaughan, D. D., Master of the Temple, The Temple, London, E. C.
    The Rev. Brooke Foss Westcott, D. D., Canon of Peterborough and Regius Professor of Divinity, Trinity College, Cambridge.
    The Rev. J. Troutbeck (Secretary), Dean's Yard, Westminster.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,144
    Likes Received:
    1,308
    The American Revision Committee.

    Philip Schaff, D. D., LL.D., President of the General Committee.

    George E. Day, D. D., Secretary.

    Old Testament Company.

    Professor Wm. Henry Green, D. D., LL.D. (Chairman), Theological Seminary, Princeton, N. J.
    Professor George E. Day, D. D. (Secretary), Divinity School of Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
    Professor Charles A. Aiken, D. D., Theological Seminary, Princeton, N. J.
    The Rev. T. W. Chambers, D. D., Collegiate Reformed Dutch Church, N. Y.
    Professor Thomas J. Conant, D. D., Brooklyn, N. Y.
    Professor John De Witt, D. D., Theological Seminary, New Brunswick, N. J.
    Professor George Emlen Hare, D. D., LL.D., Divinity School, Philadelphia.
    Professor Charles P. Krauth, D. D., LL.D., Vice-Provost of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
    Professor Charles M. Mead, D. D., Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.
    Professor Howard Osgood, D. D., Theological Seminary, Rochester, N. Y.
    Professor Joseph Packard, D. D., Theological Seminary, Alexandria, Va.
    Professor Calvin E. Stowe, D. D., Hartford, Conn. Professor James Strong, S. T. D., Theological Seminary, Ma-dison, N. J.
    Professor C. V. A. Van Dyck, LL.D., D. D., M. D., Beirut, Syria. (Advisory Member on questions of Arabic.)

    New Testament Company.

    Ex-President Theodore D. Woolsey, D. D., LL.D. (Chairman), New Haven, Conn.
    Professor J. Henry Thayer, D. D. (Secretary), Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.
    Professor Ezra Abbot, D. D., LL.D., Divinity School, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
    The Rev. J. K. Burr, D. D., Trenton, N. J.
    President Thomas Chase, LL.D., Haverford College, Pa.
    Chancellor Howard Crosby, D. D., LL.D., New York University, New York.
    Professor Timothy Dwight, D. D., Divinity School of Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
    Professor A. C. Kendrick, D. D., LL.D., University of Rochester, Rochester, N. Y.
    The Right Rev. Alfred Lee, D. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Delaware.
    Professor Matthew B. Riddle, D. D., Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn.
    Professor Philip Schaff, D. D., LL. I)., Union Theological Seminary, New York.
    Professor Charles Short, LL.D. (Secretary), N. Y.
    The Rev. Edward A. Washburn, D. D., Calvary P. E. Church, N. Y.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,144
    Likes Received:
    1,308
    So, you are still batting 0. Want to try again? Here, just a little more info for you.

    When comparing the 1611 edition to the 1769 edition (which you use) you will find 421 changes. Of that number 136 are considered "changes of substance" which change the meaning of the text.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,159
    Likes Received:
    368
    I'm guessing I have the Oxford 1769 edition?

    [​IMG]
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,144
    Likes Received:
    1,308
    You do. :)

    I have both and Oxford 1769 (my primary preaching bible) and a Cambridge 1873 (my primary study bible when studying the KJV - but I usually use the NKJV for daily reading and study).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,159
    Likes Received:
    368
    Thank!! I don't use this for regular study because it's getting pretty fragile. But I've gotta say, I like the larger print!! :D
     
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,144
    Likes Received:
    1,308
    Well, if truth be told, my preaching KJV is large print (but not GIANT print) so I can see it as it lays on the pulpit. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,159
    Likes Received:
    368
    Hubby bailed to his iPad a couple of weeks ago from his written notes. He stole....ummm, I mean borrowed my large print Bible and he even had to use reading glasses the other day!!

    My favorite Bible is my ESV personal reference Bible but the font is just 7.5 and I'm just buying stronger reading glasses so I don't have to switch. :D
     
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Rginald Woodbridge

    Rginald Woodbridge
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2016
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    4
    very ill informed person you are.what do you think bouhgt in the dark ages,and what ended them....you should learn about such things and as for God being sovriegn......that is not so in the way you think..he gave Adam abil;ity to fall....cost life of Jesus our Lord to redeem us back to himself.....was he suddely going to work thousands of years later....no God gives us freewill.....thats why satan has done so much to attack Gods word again...and again ect....Hath God said...was his word to Adam n Eve.....they chose wrong as you do in believing what you do...BUT IT ALL COMES BACK TO WHETHER YOU BELIEVE ...... all of us have .only one of two lines of bibles......the catholic one....or I could say the anti K.J.V.GROUP.....or the K.J.V.... You and all of us have only one of two chioces.......I chose to believe the bible that bought us from the dark ages...catholic dominated world....Catholics are a cult...make no mistake.....believe in Purgatory...Mary worship...changed ministries...of Ephesians4;11----to monks.brothers..fathers...sisters..mothers...ect.....and so much more..and you want to believe the bibles they can live with..did you know they cannot live with a k.j.v.as their word of God......just like you....yes God kept His word through the yeaRS TILL 1611...IT WAS CALLED THE RECIEVED TEXT...or textus receptus......the one the catholics produced and took away from the average man the ability to read it.as it was done in Latin..God just let it all happen and millions were put to death in the in the most hiddious ways...burning and torure....their crime was to believe in the bible that was not catholic....the one I believe in....its called the authorised K.J.V. today but was called the recieved text in those days......which ended when God raised up men and women to translate it from Greek to english and ended what is called the Dark Ages.......and you stand for bringing back the dark ages..even if your ignorant of it.....all true believers need to stand against what Satan has successfullly done in our generation.....oh which bible do you say is the pure word of God....any??...well I do and eagerly am awaiting the scriptures to be used..even ACTS12;4....so I can prove the truth of the K.J.V.
     
  20. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,144
    Likes Received:
    1,308
    I have already corrected your ignorance regarding the dark ages. The dark ages were from the 11th through the 13th century. The KJV was published in the early 17th century. Again, you are 400 years off.

    Actually the first printed edition of the Traditional Text was done by a catholic priest named Desiderius Erasmus. And the other popular publication of that same textform was done by Romam Catholic Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros.

    The KJV was not translated from Greek into English. The KJV was revised from the Bishops' Bible, the second "Authorized Version" published in 1568, which was a revision of the Geneva Bible of 1560, which was a revision of the Great Bible of 1539, the first "Authorized Version" in English, which was a revision of the Tyndale Bible of 1526.

    No, again, the dark ages were from the 11th century through the 13th century. The KJV did not come along until the 17th century. 400 years later.

    Please, try to get at least one point correct.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page

Loading...