1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Cambridge King James Bible a COUNTERFEIT!

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Forever settled in heaven, Aug 7, 2004.

  1. Forever settled in heaven

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Ratings:
    +0
  2. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Ratings:
    +0
    Big deal. Another link to a rabid KJVO site.

    Do they not realise that their 1769 is different from the 1611, and therefore cannot be the word of God?

    Do they not realise that the 1611 had to be corrected numerous times, and therefore cannot be perfect, and therefore cannot be the word of God?

    Does anyone realise that I am being sarcastic and don't really CARE which version they bay about because the entire man-made lie of KJVO stinks to the highest heavens?

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    Not worth a comment.
     
  4. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,475
    Ratings:
    +82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    As an Oxford 1762 man, I say an AMEN to the evil Cambridge-only crowd! :eek: :eek:
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    How dare you - I am a faithful Cambridge 1769 man and I take umbrage at your comments!
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    Well----its as good as any other fight ;) .
     
  7. aefting

    aefting New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Ratings:
    +0
    I can't tell, reading that link, if they are being serious or sarcastic.

    Andy
     
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    I am afraid they are serious.

    What would they about the differences between 1611 and 1769?!?!
     
  9. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,277
    Ratings:
    +440
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, they're totally serious. Makes you shudder.
     
  10. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    16,396
    Ratings:
    +1,318
    Faith:
    Baptist
  11. mesly

    mesly Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Messages:
    283
    Ratings:
    +0
    The author of the article does have a valid point, which is: there are different texts which are sold as the KJV. And as he has pointed out, there are some theological differences (i.e. changing of the "S" in Spirit, to "s" in spirit - which spirit are they talking about - the Holy Spirit or another spirit?).

    As a former KJVO, this used to bother me (as it has the author of the article). He is incorrect in thinking that this is a modern issue. I did some research in looking at older KJV's and found that the variations existed as far back as 1860 - which is the oldest KJV I could personally find.

    It would be nice if someone could compile a list of the differences and the origins of the variations. If anyone knows of such a list, please post the url here.

    But, we need to be careful:

    1 Tim. 6:4, He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, (KJV)
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    The differences go back even further. Great differences between 1611 and 1769.
     
  13. Pete

    Pete New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,345
    Ratings:
    +0
    [​IMG]

    The page must be parody.

    Best section:
    Emphasis added.

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  14. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
  15. Pete

    Pete New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    4,345
    Ratings:
    +0
    C4K, yeah, I know they're fair dinkum....That just makes that quote even funnier [​IMG] [​IMG] :D
     
  16. moeowo2

    moeowo2 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Messages:
    244
    Ratings:
    +0
    Oh that is funny!! [​IMG] and yet sad at the same time :( .

    I'll never forget when I worked at a Christian Bookstore and in the bible department and had a KJVO preacher bring in two people from a foreign country and was telling them that the KJV was the only version to get..then he put his hand on the NIV section (he didn't realize it at first) and we he realized that his and has there he freaked out shook his hand as though it was on fire and proceeded to tell the couple this is one of the bibles that are from the devil! It's a sad situation that the couple was in. I prayed that they wouldn't be influenced by that "preacher".
     
  17. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    In case you are curious, from the link above, is how 10=7:

     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Ratings:
    +0
    </font>[/QUOTE]I see divisions in the KJVO ranks here.

    Pastor Gail A. Piplinger's new book
    IN AWE OF THY WORD extensively quotes
    words and phrases from
    the WYCLIFFE Bible of 1389 and from
    an earlier pre-English Bible called
    THE ANGLO-SAXON BIBLE (pre 700AD).
     
  19. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Ratings:
    +0
    I guess Psalm 12:6 was a lie before the KJV, for it said "are pure" and "purified seven times", not "will one day be pure" and "will one day be purified seven times" long before the KJV came along.
     
  20. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    According to one segment Psalm 12:6 wasn't really a verse until 1611.
     
Loading...