Featured The Actual KJV 1611

And that inspiration equally covers every valid translation in whatever language, old or new, of course.

 

So the Esv/Nas/Nkjv are all garbage?

 

So NO difference between what the Apostles wrote down, or what the 1611 team did?

 

Not inspiration, its preservation!

 

George your a hoot... I love you my KJV brother and I refrain from getting into the battle and I've heard it all... And with robycop3 private policing of 34 KJVO sites, how does he find time to even read the Bible?... Brother Glen

 

Cool. Was it missing the cross bar on the right side? Did it have the tiny crossbar on the left side only?

 

Of course it's not only the KJB that can be inspired.
For the umptieth time, your problem is not with the KJB, it's with the concept of a perfect Bible.

 

Look at the profile picture, Popeye would knock me out cold. I don't stand a chance against those forearms.

 

You do not demonstrate that that poster has any problem with accepting that God gave 100% absolutely perfect Scriptures to the prophets and apostles.

You have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that the Scriptures teach that the supernatural process of inspiration continued after the completion of the New Testament. You cite no verse that states that a Bible translation made after the end of the giving of the Scriptures to the prophets and apostles can be given by inspiration of God. You appeal to what was part of the process of the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles and try to suggest something that the Scriptures do not state. Your opinions are not taught in the Scriptures.

 

You keep assuming KJVO’s default is double-inspiration. Not everyone holds to e.g, Ruckman’s methods. It’s the “inspiration” through “preservation.”

 

Like I said, you reject all Bibles as merely the work of men, having errors, like any humanist.
You have no word of God (which by definition is flawless), by your own admission. And we should listen to you? I trow not.

 

No such thing as a "KJB".
And no Bible translation is simon-pure perfect with no technical errors. All Bible translations are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men.

And, given the multiple English meanings for many ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek words & phrases, different translators make different word choices in their renderings.

But every valid translation in whatever language is perfect for the purpose God intended for it.

 

George, all Bible translations were made by men. Can you name any of them that were/are perfect?

And can you show us a technically-perfect bible translation?

 

Perhaps readers can see that you advocate the same erroneous "all or nothing" human non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning concerning Bible translations as that stated by extreme KJV-only author Terence McLean.

Referring to the KJV, Terence McLean wrote: "If you would change one word (Easter) you are one the slippery slope to total infidelity towards God's words" (History of Your Bible Proving the King James to be the perfectly preserved words of God, p. 12).

Terence McLean asserted: "My position would be that the difference between the person who rejects or corrects even one word in God's Bible and the atheist who rejects every word in God's Bible is only a matter of degree: both are infidels" (p. 11).

According to a consistent application of your own assertions, George, those who had the 1611 edition of the KJV had "no word of God" since the 1611 edition had and has some proven errors.

According to a consistent application of your own assertions, we should not listen to the KJV translators since by your reasoning they did not have any word of God since they acknowledged that Bible translations had some blemishes and imperfections [flaws].

There were evidently also some flaws or imperfections in the printed editions of the original language texts consulted by the makers of the KJV since it is a fact that they did not follow any one edition of the Hebrew OT text and any one edition of the Greek NT text 100%. According to your own stated reasoning, George, the KJV translators did not have the word of God to translate since there were actual flaws in their printed editions [some introduced by the type-setters or printers and some where the editors may have followed imperfect original-language manuscript copies since the KJV translators did not translate what was in that edition as they chose to follow another edition or another source such as the Latin Vulgate]. It should be clear that your own stated reasoning would undermine or destroy the very foundation on which the KJV is based.

 

KJV-only author Al Lacy contended: “If it [a Bible translation] has even ONE error, it is NOT the Word of TRUTH! You cannot trust it” (Can I Trust my Bible, p. 99).

Al Lacy asserted: “If we do not have a perfect translation, we do not HAVE the Scriptures” (p. 101).

 

Al lacy is (snip) not correct

admin correction

 

I have been working against the KJVO myth for around 40 years, been on the internet for about 30 years. Those 34 sites were over a period of time, of course. Before the 'net, I'd just encounter KJVOs at churches, so I could prove KJVO false to just a few at a time. But the net provided, & still provides a much-greater audience. And as the orchard grows larger, so does the number of bad apples. As I said, most of those sites have since folded. (I discovered how to avoid most bans on various sites, but I don't believe it's Christian to do so; thus I generally reminded the site admins & could evade theur ban if I so chose, with one last parting shot of calling them cowards for not trying to oppose me.

But I had time to read several different Bible versions cover-to-cover, & now that I'm retired I have more time to fight false doctrines, including the KJVO myth. (I just turned age 73, & with most of my life past, I'm careful to not lie, etc. as I know I won't live as a mortal man forever.)

 

Really? Tell me what part was technically wrong.