Before The KJV

OK looking at this chart I dont see anything before the 1525 Tyndale English Bible.

So, where was God's perfect Word for the English People before 1525?

Of course that would make it more than 7.

Another note is that the Matthew Bible and the Great Bible were competing together to be God's
perfect Word in overlapping years.

HankD

 

Dr. Bob, AMEN, and well said !

 

Joh 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art
a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except
God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter
the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof,
but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest
not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that
we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe,
if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,
even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world
through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already,
because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
(KJV)
.................................................

If the Bible you prefer contains the preceding quotation - copied from from John 3:1-18 - then it matters not what Bible you prefer. How many readers and writers can state - "I have been BORN AGAIN" - in the context of Jesus Christ wherein Christ states - " 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

 

What are you talking about?

 

You have been shown your error concerning this passage many times. For you to persist in twisting it to support your views is in violation of Revelation 22:19.

BTW, since when is anything produced by God in need of purification? This obvious inconsistency in your interpretation proves you wrong.

These were not successive language versions of the whole Bible. The NT was not in Hebrew then Aramaic then Greek.

Also, using this logic, there must be a purified Greek OT out there somewhere that the KJV translators did not use!

These languages were concurrent in New Testament times and after along with Greek. They do not represent stepping stones to perfection. BTW, the evidence we have demonstrates that we don't have two identically worded Bibles in Syriac, Latin, or Greek... how can they be "purified" by your definition?

What German? Luther's Bible... remember, it originally didn't contain the Johannine Comma.

No actually they were either those that "hast a name that [they] livest, and [were] dead" or the Pergamos church .

The KJV translators did not keep God's Word. Among them were persecutors of true believers and greedy, power hungry political-clergymen.

All of these versions were in use at the same time.

Authorized? Yes. By the High Commission court in an effort to discipline dissenters from the state church... like Baptists.

Prove it with scripture. I can show you examples of all seven churches in every generation since the Reformation and suspect that the line extends all the way back to the 1st century church. These churches aren't eras, they are examples to every age. You are attempting to foist a false interpretation onto this scripture.

Since the Bible does not say that these churches represent eras (in fact a literal reading demands that they represent actual churches)... and since the Bible doesn't come even close to giving us dates for delineating between these supposed eras in the church age... I think I will leave it.

If you believe this interpretation dogmatically, the Bible is not your final authority, KJV or otherwise.

 

Thank You Pete, I feared I was the only one missing the point of this post.

Here's my take on it:

If the Bible you prefer contains the preceding quotation [It's a quote from the KJV] - copied from John 3:1-18 - then it matters not what Bible you prefer [i.e., as long as it's the KJV] . How many readers and writers can state - "I have been BORN AGAIN" - in the context of Jesus Christ wherein Christ states - " 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." [I take this to be some sort of reference to the extreme KJVO belief that one can be saved only by/through the actual, exact words of the KJV (and through no other translation).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

can't.............stop...........laughing!!

Please note that you are missing the Wiclif Translation of 1380.

Following your "logic," you should be using the Bishops Bible. If you are using the TRUE Authorised Version (you are probably using a revision), then your own Bible fails your test as it would have to have been "purified" an Unscriptural eighth time. By the way, are you now ready to embrace the Apocrypha?

Your homework for tonight is to put your AV (likely a revision) into a "furnace of earth," and purify it seven times, just like the silver to which this Passage refers. I won't do it, as I paid too much for my fascimile of the AV I currently use.

One more time, Dr. Bob:
WARNING!! WARNING!! ETHNOCENTRISM ALERT!!

 

HEre is how you get saved according
to the New Century Version (NCV)

Romans 10:9 (NCV):
If you use your mouth to say,
"Jesus is Lord", and if you
believe in hour heart that God raised Jesus
from the dead, you will be saved.

 

Ransom: "Anyone for eisegesus?"

No, I prefer "exsegesis" but
thanks for the offer

We done the last 147 topics without
no exse-whatever
and we Shirley can
do the next 147 without

 

You guys sure know how to tempt a guy into getting back into the fray don't you?

I'll keep an eye on this thread and if no one answers the questions in a few days I'll give it a try.

Ransom said, "Anyone for eisegesis?" I have to agree; there's an awful lot of that going on these days.

 

"Things which are being purified are pure before and while they are being purified". George Orwell?


HankD

 

I'm not KJVO, and I don't subscribe to their interpretation of Psalm 12. But in the interest of fairness, the Wycliffe Bible would not qualify for the list because it was translated from the Vulgate. According to KJVO thinking, only versions done from the TR are considered "pure." So, the number seven would work, as long as lesser-known versions/revisions such as those of George Joye or the Taverner's Bible are ignored.

 

Baptist in Richmond said:

Following your "logic," you should be using the Bishops Bible.

Not so. Remember - there were two versions of Wycliffe's Bible - the one Wycliffe himself did, for the most part, and a later revision of it done after his death by his followers.

Unlike Wycliffe's first version, which was a wooden literal translation from the Latin, the second version was rendered in far better English and could be said to be a distinct version in its own right.

Therefore, the seventh, and therefore pure, English Bible is not the Bishop's, but the Geneva.

And in case that's not complicated enough, we could always get into the quagmire of Anglo-Saxon Scriptures translated by men such as AElfric or Alfred the Great before the Norman invasion. If Tyndale's incomplete translation gets on the list then these are also qualified . . .

 

DCK said:

So, the number seven would work, as long as lesser-known versions/revisions such as those of George Joye or the Taverner's Bible are ignored.

And there is the KJV-only "methodology" in a nutshell: ignore the inconvenient.

 

I'm sorry Bugman, my humor didn't strike your funny bone

George Orwell was the author of 1984 with his famous line "war is peace" which was called doublespeak.

This method of comunication came to be know as Orwellian DoubleSpeak in modern society - when ever anyone said that two contradictory concepts were actually the same.

Thus it seems to be so with many of the KJVO concepts (IMO).

HankD