Title page with "King James Bible"...

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Salamander, Dec 2, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    not "version", is found in the ones who use the printing templates belonging to Bearing Precious Seed.

    The erroneous claim of mv proponents that no Bible makes this distinction is therefore proven to be just another lie, or it is at least due to their ignorance of this fact.

    I hadn't mentioned this until now, but thought it might raise some hackles high enough so they can be trimmed back to their proper height.:applause:
     
  2. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    Are you saying that the KJV is not a version of the Bible?!

    Tyndale's translation, which was made straight from the original languages for the first time in English was a version of the Word of God.(The two Wycliffes were in English,but taken from the Latin).

    Coverdale's Bible was a version.The same can be said for Rogers,Taverner,Great Bible,Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible.

    The KJV (being redundant here)is another in a long line of versions from among many other languages.It is not unique in that respect.The KJV is not the original --it is a form of the original.
     
  3. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, now, if printing templates are now inspired, why would someone put an English monarch's name on God's word? Shouldn't it just be "Bible?"

    Gee, this gets silly. It's a version, man.
     
  4. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    The objection to the use of "KJB" has been repoved.

    The liberal usage of "version" is just another attack against the KJB as found in nearly ALL discussions about translations.

    This forum is NOT innocent of that charge.

    No, the KJB is not the original, but true, it IS a form of THE Original!

    Thank you for making that distinction, although I think it wasn't intentional!:laugh:
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    The TNIV,NLTse,HCSB,ISV,NRSV,NASBU,MLB,REB,NKJ,ESV and all other valid versions are forms of the original.The KJV is not unique in this respect.
     
  6. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is unique in the respect it is perfectly definable and in perfect harmony within its own pages. That cannot be said about those other versions you mentioned. It is therefore more to be claimed as the word of God than those versions you mentioned as well.:wavey:

    IOW, it has BETTER form!:godisgood:
     
  7. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,198
    Likes Received:
    376
    See, I think MY Bible is better because it just says "Holy Bible" and not the name of some dude. :)
     
  8. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    It's just a book. Why the uproar? I don't get it. Why do we, Baptists in particular, seek to divinize the pages of a book? I just don't get it.
     
  9. Palatka51

    Palatka51
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    And likely never will.
    Psalm 40:7
    7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,
     
  10. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wonder if the KJV should have originally been called the "Authorized Bible" rather than the Authorized Version?

    I continue to be amazed at the outrageously meaningless arguments I see in support of KJV onlyism.

    Salamander, can you show me a contradiction in the NASB?
     
  11. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow. So now I'm a liberal because I used the word "version," instead of "Bible."

    Of course, I'm a bit amazed to realize what a fan of the "Living Bible" you are. Learn something new every day...

    Sal, you may not be good for facts, but you're great for humor!
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    So what? I use the New American Standard Bible. Having a word in the title doesn't really help settle the issue.
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I checked this Bible:

    http://www.bpsmilford.org/about.html

    // Bearing Precious Seed's English Bibles are the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. We will not print other versions. //

    Interesting, when BPS (Bearing Precious Seed) is explaning things to folks it talks about the 'Authorized King James Version' NOT the 'King James Bible'.

    Looking at this Picture of the Bible they print:

    http://www.bpsmilford.org/images/Whole-Bible1-copy.gif

    shows several ERRORS:

    1. It says 'KING JAMES BIBLE 1611
    (but the book says:

    II Kings 12:1 (version unknown???)
    In the seventh year of Jehu Jehoash began to reign; and forty years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Zibiah of Beer-sheba.

    By contrast, the King James Version, 1611 Edition (KJV1611) says:

    2 Kings 12:1 (KJV1611 Edition):
    In the seuenth yeere of Iehu, Iehoash began to reigne, and fourtie yeeres reigned he in Ierusalem, and his mothers name was Zibiah of Beersheba.

    They are NOT the same. Therefore I must conclude: The Holy Bible printed by FIRST WORD says "King James Bible 1611" which might be true to a few people BUT what is shown is NOT the King James Version, 1611 Edition.

    I have a book Called (the spine):

    THE
    HOLY
    BIBLE

    King
    James
    Version

    1611
    Edition

    Nelson

    301

    It reads as shown above.

    I used to have a Hendreckson Bible that was the KJV1611 Edition. I gave it to a person who had never seen the real KJV that was Authorized by King James (and not some MV KJV). That KJV1611 Edition read like the above (I compared the two KJV1611 Editions to each other and never found any difference betweend the two, even though the publishers were different).
     
    #13 Ed Edwards, Dec 2, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2008
  14. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed, quit messing up Sal's opinions with facts.

    :D
     
  15. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    Of all the ridiculous arguments concerning KJV onlyism this one is near the top. Sal you have outdone yourself this time.
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    So? The KJV is still just a VERSION, same as is the NASB.
     
  17. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    :p


    filling, pie filling
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
     
    #17 Ed Edwards, Dec 2, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2008
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, no, the NASB is a Bible. It says so right on my title page.
     
  19. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I went through all the Bibles in my library this morning and put a line through the word 'Version' and wrote 'Bible' in it's place so I can confuse Sal if he ever comes over to visit.:laugh:
     
  20. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    This thread is another example of Version Worship, and should be closed...
    Salamander posted this thread in an attempt to stir trouble...

    Isn't that the definition of what a troll does?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...