The Question of All Time

Chick makes a very good case that the AV1611 translators were not under divine guidance! He also makes a good case that the KJV can not be trusted because "if" something from Satan can be in the AV then the KJVO Camp is in trouble yet again LOL!

You just got to love the conspiracy theories coming from the KJVO Camp. I figure that this booklet could easily become an X-files movie :0!!!

This type of hear say history would make the most liberal historian very proud!

I don't see how anyone in could accept this trash coming from Chick. Slander and lies is all that I see.

By the way, you guys ever notice how he draws Satan? Horns, etc... maybe this guy should read the KJV and see how it describes Satan and leave the traditional rendering alone. <-- just my rant!

 

You know I have to agree with Trotter. On my defense of my Bible to friends of mine I did some research. King James wanted a version that anyone who read english could have. There was a version in the 1500's right before it, in english but evidently it wasn't good enough or something to that effect.

I did research on my NIV and, I found that it was traslated from greek and aramiac texts. the ORIGINAL documents. I also found out that the NIV traslations left out quite a bit, So I do it this way, I read my KJV 1611 and I read my NIV using BOTH. I find it makes it easier to understand for me. Not that it's going to make it for you, or him or even her.

But the thing we have to do is stop the "looking down our noses" simply because people don't agree with the version of the Bible we use.

If I remember right, Christ taught us tolerance and NEVER to judge someone else, I think that you can find that no matter what Bible you use. We need to stop the pettyness and get into the scitptures. We are never going to make any progress learning them, if we keep going like this. JMHO

God Bless

 

You didn't do enough!

Nope. The only bible authorized to be read in the churches of England was the Great Bible. But the rapidly growing Puritan faction of the Church of Englan preferred the Geneva bible over the Great Bible. The Geneva bible was published in Geneva by Reformed Calvinists (Calvin, Beza, and Whittingham) and reflected the political views of those men. The marginal notes were strongly worded against any Monarch or Monarchy. James detested the Geneva bible, mostly because of its marginal notes, so he commissioned a bible that would be acceptable to the Puritans as well as the Episcopalian branch of the Church of England in an effort to rid England of the Geneva bible.

There were several English versions immediately prior to the KJV of 1611, and most of them were pretty good translations. The Tyndale, Matthews, Coverdale, Bishop's, Great, and Geneva bibles were just a few of them.

Greek and Hebrew texts.

Nope. The original documents crumbled to dust years ago. The NIV not only did not rely on the no longer extant original documents, they did not use Hebrew or Greek manuscripts at all. The Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic text and the New Testament was translated from the UBS/NA Greek text.

The translators did not leave anything out of their translation which was contained in the texts they were translating from. In fact, just the opposite is true. They included passages in their translation which were missing from the text they were translating from. You can see this by turning to Mark chapter 16. They included verses 9-20 even though the text they were translating from did not contain those verses.

I agree.

 

I stand corrected I forgot to include the Hebrew oops


As far as the others I did not go into detailed research .. what i did was to do enough research until I felt comfortable with my decision. I could research the rest of my life on the diffrent Bibles out there, but it would take much needed time away from actually reading mine. TY THOUGH!!!

 

The modern versions are different, so therefore they are not the same.

No, because the scripture would be the same except for some spelling, textual corrections

Because of some printing, spelling, and textual corrections. </font>[/QUOTE]Agree!

 

Kidz, the Gipper has been PROVEN to have given more wrong answers than a months' worth of contestants on "Celebrity Jeopardy".

And notice how he avoids THIS question:

WHERE WAS GOD'S WORD FOUND **IN ENGLISH** BEFORE 1611?

Do YOU care to answer?

 

Kidz(Quoting Dr. Gipp):Dr. Ruckman's style is forceful in regard to the authority of Scripture and his treatment of Bible critics is devastating.

That's because he has a complete lack of FACTUAL answers & tries to compensate by bombast, thus more readily revealing his stupidity.


His approach to most Bible issues is one of grace, where many Christians lack such grace. But on the singular issue of the authority of Scripture his approach is similar to the Apostle Paul (II Corinthians 10:10) and the great English scholar, John William Burgon.

Actually, his approach and his "knowledge" is similar to that of Bart Simpson.


A very few advocates of the perfect Bible, lacking Dr. Ruckman's scholastic qualifications, have assimilated his caustic style with tragic results.

And, given the opportunity, they'll imitate his approach to marriage while calling themselves "pastors". His "caustic style" is as about as smart as placing a 2-yr-old at the controls of a fully-loaded M2.

The broad majority of King James Bible believers do not utilize this style simply because it is not their natural style.

Actually, it's because the vast majority of KJVOs recognoze him as a loser. And so are YOU if you continue to believe the junk put forth by such as Dr. Gipp and his compadres. Try checking out the VERACITY of their points for yourself sometime. Use your own noodle; God put it there for a reason.

 

some KJVO's say that the Apocrypha is dead wrong and a seed of deciet sown by the Roman Catholic Church yet there own version includes it. Thing I don't understand is how could the Canon books be "inspired of God" but not the Apocrypha. If the KJV is the "perfect Word of God" why don't they include the Apocrypha.

 

Are the maps in the back of my NIV inspired? How about the concordance? Just because it is between the covers does not mean it is the inspired word of God. How many more times does this have to be explained?

 

The maps are not disguised as Scripture. The Apocrypha is considered Scripture to this day by the RCC out of which came the Church of England. While the RCC integrates the apocryphal books into the body of the Douay-Rheims (for instance) the CofE does not and the CofE indeed proclaims the books as non-canonical. It is/was however placed inbetween the Testaments in a place of distinction. the apocryphal books were included in the AV First Edition daily Scripture reading guide as well as cross referenced in the margins along with the Scriptures.

in the The CofE 39 articles of religion they appeal to Jerome:

"And the other books (as Hierome [Jerome] said) the Church reads for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet it does not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following:"

Combine this with the other facts above and to me this is an equivocation. Look at the similarity of "example of life and instruction of manners" and "for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"


You know all this Skan.

These facts are being used to show the fallibility of the KJV translators and their romish tainted theology. They had some outstanding qualities as well, we all know that.

To cite the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the AV as a mistake of the CofE is not an indictment against the KJV but just one more area of truth necessary to be used to show the error of KJVOism and their assumptions concerning the human/divine sources of the KJV and where the line must be drawn.

HankD

 

Ed's Answer: every time.

It just came up to me that though i
try to explain "some people say
KJV1611AV when they mean the KJV1769 edition".
And the people who say it are the most
deluded. And a person it had been said to
several times finally had the light bulb go
off in their head: hey, we mean something
different by KJV1611AV than they do.
I've got two each facimilie copies of
a KJV1611 first Edition Bible on my book
shelve. I can grab it with my hand.

Over at this site:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/

you can have electronic access to
a Bible called "King James Version".
Nothing is said about which KJV, but it
is in all points i know similar to
the KJV1769 edition (BTW, the
Apocrypha is included).
Also i've got a KJV1769 book on my
bookshelve (It is in with a Tim LaHaye
PROPHECY STUDY BIBLE with lots of Tim
LaHaye notes but no Apocrypha and no
pesky translator notes and no mention
of which version of the KJV it might be.

In other words i have something many
King James Version Only (KJVO) folk do
not have: a physical chunk i call
KJV1769 and another physical chunk i
call KJV1611. The deluded KJVO folk
have one chunk which they call
KJV1611.

I found this out when i went to the
Bible Museum in Eureka, Arkansas.
In the Book Store nearby there were some
photocopys of some oages
of the King James Versions they have there.
(At $3 each I didn't buy very many).
After getting past the Gothic Font, i
realized that they are different from
the KJV that i have. I found an electronic
Bible like the KJV i had on-line, even
bought one for off-line but electrnic use.
I searched "KJV1611AV" in hopes

Now if you do that search you get
like my own post here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1638/2.html
on 08 June 2004

Back then, i found out there was a lot of
talk about the KJV1611 BUT NARY A ONE actually
used the KJV1611 that i was looking for
(or is that "for which I was looking"?).

 

Hi, just thought I'd give my two cents worth.
BTW, I haven't been posting for a while because my computer at home is not working right. So I'll have to just drop by when I can.
BTW, my son is doing fine, 10 weeks seizure free!

Now the question of all time is "Do you know Jesus as Savior?" And you can find out how by using any version or translation.

quoting from trash will not prove that the KJV is God's only word.
All reliable versions are equal.
But when you follow the hyles brainwashing techniques, it is easy to see why some can't tell trash from treasure.

 

PRAISE THE LORD that your son is doing so well!

 

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it!

Good to see you again Brother TinyTim!