Where has this gotten you?

And that is just from one page ... You have more than a thousand posts, many of which contain similar attacks. Why play innocent?? We all know better ... Nuff said ...

 

Sometimes truth hurts, Pastor Larry. As a therapist, many times just showing a person what he is saying can begin the change process. In others, they are so blind to their own rantings that they are unable to see it, even when shown what they themselves have said or have done.

I cannot see any part of my post where I was hateful. I merely pointed out Truth, and anyone who wishes to verify Truth can examine your posts for themselves.

 

Note the change here... "Get a Bible. Rather get a the KJB." </font>[/QUOTE]OOPS!

 

Timothy 1769:
"The Bible can accurately record conversations without necessarily endorsing what is said. The difference between the KJV and various modern versions is that the MVs here have Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, calling Joseph Jesus's father, which really is the same thing as God himself saying it. Do you see how that's not really comparable to having Mary the mother of our Lord, but ultimately just another wretched sinner saved by grace, say it?"

robycop: Every valid BV I've seen reads "father" at Luke 2:48. And in both 2:48 & 49 the Greek "pater" is used. Both Mary and Luke knew exactly what they were talking about. After all, Luke wrote an account of Gabriel's visit to Mary, and he was doubtlessly aware of Jesus'Divine conception as a human baby, as were, of course, J&M.

In those days, the man who raised a child was known as that child's father, no matter who the biological father may have been. Joseph and Mary raised Jesus, so they were known as His PARENTS. So I maintain that all the KJVO stuff concerning the rendering of these verses in MVs is simply more KJVO horsefeathers as they desperately try to get someone...ANYONE...to believe them.

 

lady Eagle:"Before I came here I knew the King James Bible is God's infallible, inerrant, inspired word of God. And I still do."

robycop: So did and do I, except the inerrant part. The KJV has a few booboos, same as any other man-made translation. And I've never been limited to just one version. I started with the NASV and worked back in time with the versions, the Geneva Bible being the oldest one I've read completely.(Been years ago!)

Before I came here, I hadn't seen any evidence that KJVOism had any validity, and I sure haven't seen any here either. I scratch my bald head in wonder that some sincere, devout Christians really BELIEVE that hooey, especially in the light that Scripture doesn't support it.

BY WHOSE AUTHORITY is anyone a KJVO? BY WHOSE AUTHORITY do they tell me I should be?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

It seems as though many here do not understand the difference between a Revision (which the modern versions could be correctly called this) and an edition which was done to the KJV. To those of you who might not know any better, the KJV went through a series of editions, not revisions.

Edition: 1. The size or form in which a book is published 2. a total number of copies of a book, etc. published at one time 3. any particular issue of a newspaper.

Edit: 1. to prepare (a manuscript)for publication by arranging, revising, etc. 2. to control the policy and publication of (a newspaper, etc.)3. to prepare (a film, tape, etc.)for presentation by cutting, dubbing, etc. 4. To make changes in (a computer file).

Revise: 1. to read over carefully and correct, improve, or update 2. To change or ammend.

The editing that was done to the editions of the KJV involed changes of spelling, punctations due to printing errors and important language changes such as "f" to "s", etc., and specific words to better/more accurately translate the origional word - as the English language was being perfected. They did not however, "retranslate" nor "revise" as the above definition of revision states. This is however, the process that the modern versions have undergone - some worse than others. You can find out more information about this at www.wayoflife.org/.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

God bless you and good luck. I say that as a man who is going through exactly the same thing in my association. The kjo sect has raised its ugly head in a few of our sister churches, we have lost one wonderfull man of God (pastor) due partially to this, and if the the kjvo's have their way They will lose another (yours truly). I refuse to be drawn in to any church organization that puts a translation above the Lord Jesus Christ. I say that why? Because I rarely hear much about Jesus from the people involved in this, its all kjv,kjv, and if you think any differently you are a satanic heretic, (their words,not mine).
Myself, I agree with the kjv translators when they wrote "variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the scriptures." The kjv translators werent even kjvo.
On Sunday night, I dont bring a sermon, but instead lead an interactive adult bible study. I have people in my congregation who prefer the kjv, I have people that prefer the nkjv, or the nasb, or even the niv. It has proven very helpfull in some areas of study to compare verses from these different and God inspired translations, just like the kjv translators said it would be. The church I serve in now is not in danger of going the kjvo path, but sadly that seems to not be the case with some of our sister churches. Baptists as a whole seem to be fiercely independent (and I am no less so) If a sister church wants to be kjvo, no problem, knock yourself out, but when that church tries to force their will on other churches especially the one that I am filling the pulpit? I think you get the point. Hang in there, and fight the good fight. And I'll pray for you and your church.

 

To me, it's mostly semantics. There were changes made, corrections to printing errors, spelling, notes, etc.

Besides, the KJV itself, "first edition" 1611, was a *revision* of prior translations. It was a revision of the word of God that already existed.

 

Thanks Elijah.
Nice screen name: It's nice to know that I'm not the only one that hasn't bowed my knee to Baal.

At our annual meeting last august, I was so ashamed. Because of all the KJVO discussion going on (even months before the meeting) Everytime someone would preach stuff like
"good ol' King James" or
"those other per-versions" ** or
"King James the only true word.."

The place would erupt with "Amens"
But.......

When the Minister that preached the Annual sermon on the need to bring in the Harvest, and that Christ died for the world's sins......

there was not one Amen!!!! I'm guilty too.
Talk about chastisement!!!

What a shame when King James can get a whole churchfull of "Amens" and he's dead.
but the Risen Lord and Saviour can't even get one "Amen"!!!!!

That's when I realized something was wrong!!
And started searching for the truth.

**Moderators: I did not call any version a "perversion" Just quoted someone. If this is unacceptable then I apologize upfront. Thank you.

 

Michelle, if you dig deeper, you'll find that Bro. Cloud is wrong on several issues. Here's a link to get you started. I've studied the writings of Cloud and the article in this link for veracity, and, rather than state my findings, I suggest you look for yourself. The research can be done in less than 4 hours online.

http://www.atruechurch.info/cloud.html

One thing in which Cloud is right on about is his criticism of Gail Riplinger's works. Here, from the link you provided, is the link to Cloud's critique of The Ripper's book:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/newage.htm

And her response:
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/omadman.html

And Cloud's rebuttal:

http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/writings/kjo/dcongar.html

You see, not even two staunch KJVOs can agree!

As time passed & more mss were discovered, it became necessary to do some editing to existing BVs as well as make whole new translations. Some people see some sort of satanic conspiracy in this, but I believe GOD is 100% in control of His word & that He presents it AS HE CHOOSES.

Remember, Dr. D.A.Waite, a staunch KJVOer, has found 126 differences between the AV 1611 and the 1769 Blayney's edition, the most commonly-used KJV edition today-differences that cannot be explained to differences in spelling, punctuation, or sentence structure. Does that mean that we should throw one or the other out? Not hardly. Just about every long-running BV in any language has been "edited" as time passed. Did the making of the AV 1611 render the Geneva Bible or the Tyndale invalid? If the answer's "yes", that means God didn't preserve His word. But yet they differ. This is yet another indictment against KJVO.

 

TinyTim,
Your post was quite sad and indicative of many of our KJVO brethren. To love and respect God's Word is one thing; but it appears to me what you experienced is "Seek ye first the kingdom of KJV..."

 

Elijah,
This thing has reared its ugleeee head here too! While we are surrounded by literally millions of lost souls, some of our IFB brethren have made the KJV a litmus test...some even arrogantly have the "Oneupmanship" attitude displayed by some of our fellow posters, i.e. "If you preach/ teach out of anything but the KJV...." Some will tolerate arrogance, dictators, etc, but if you DARE use even the NKJV, you are a compromiser, etc. Thankfully, I have freedom, and I refuse to let anyone manipulate me, and I hope we are all can stay the course.
God bless, Bro Kevin

 

Double post

 

D. A. Waite, in his booklet "The Authorized Version of 1611 Compared to Today's King James Version" found 421 changes between the edition of 1611 and the Cambridge edition of 1762. Of those 421 changes, 136 were what he called "substantial changes." (page 4 of his booklet).

 

Far as I can find, Waite compared only the AV 1611 with the 1769 edition. He used the Nelson reprint of the AV 1611 for his "base".

I no longer have Dr. Waite's book, "Defending the KJV which contains these changes. I had only borrowed it; I've never owned a copy.

All the KJVs I own are 1769s, along with the Hendrickson's Edition of the AV 1611. If there are differences between the 1762 & 1769, I would like to see them.

BTW, here are some changes between the AV 1611 &"current KJVs" as documented by Timothy Morton in his book, "Which Translation Should You Trust?"

The 1611 KJV did not have "of silver" (Exod. 21:32), "of God" (1 John 5:12), and "Amen" (Eph. 6:24) that present KJV's have.

The 1611 KJV began Jeremiah 38:16 with the wording "So the king sware" while present KJV's have "So Zedekiah the king sware."

Present KJV's have "the city of the Damascenes" (2 Cor. 11:32) while the 1611 KJV has "the city."

The 1611 KJV has "thee" at 2 Timothy 4:13 while current KJV's have "thee and the books."

At Eccl. 8:17, the 1611 KJV has only "seek it out" while current KJV's have "seek it out, yet he shall not find it."

At 2 Kings 11:10, the 1611 KJV only has "the Temple" while current KJV's have "the temple of the LORD."

On P.41 of his book, Morton says there are "400 or so changes between the 1611 edition and today's that do affect the text". However, I don't know which KJV edition he was comparing to the AV 1611.

I'm commending YOU for acknowledging that these differences exist. But sorry, to my knowledge, I've never read a 1762 KJV unless it's the common Cambridge Edition, and if that's what it is, I don't recall any differences.(But I wasn't looking for them!)

 

Skanwmatos:
D. A. Waite, in his booklet "The Authorized Version of 1611 Compared to Today's King James Version" found 421 changes between the edition of 1611 and the Cambridge edition of 1762. Of those 421 changes, 136 were what he called "substantial changes." (page 4 of his booklet).

Thanx, Skan, I just cannot find that info online anywhere. Maybe I'm trying too hard? Somehow I had the number "126" in my haid, but I'm glad you corrected it. But far as I know, Waite used the 1769 Blayney's Edition for his comparison, and I don't know which edition Morton used.(I'll try to find Waite's booklet online after I take care of some electronic business transactions!)

 

As the 1762 and 1769 editions are virtually the same, and those differences are not noted in the differences listed by Dr. Waite, "things equal to the same thing are equal to each other." The differences between the 1611 and the 1762 will be the same as the differences between the 1611 and the 1769.