Correction on the KJV Position

Uh-oh, I believest thou hast scorched not a few hides.:wavey:

 

And the AV is worthy of defence.

It is a fine translation that has served the English speaking church for almost 400 years - Praise the Lord for it.

I would like to read the resources to see if their vindication included the idea that it was the only acceptable version.

 

I have not read any in their entirety, but the ones I have read lead me to believe that they were writing in reaction to inferior translation methods rather than from a viewpoint of proving KJVOism.

You can find many of the sources quoted on Google books. Just don't read them too close to bedtime. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Could you provide some quotes from those sources please where the writers say that the AV is the only Bible ever to be used?


BTW, God doesn't need any Bible, He wrote it.

 

Don't you think that if God wanted "one translation" in that verse He could have it there without Ehud's help?

 

The burden of proof is on you to "Correct the KJV position." That was the name of your thread.

 

God doesn't need a Bible, we do, and in our own language.

And we don't need one where you add "one Bible" to His inspired words.

 

God's "logic" is higher than our "logic", and His ways are higher than our ways. He doesn't need the help of people who would try to 'defend' His words by adding to them.

 

I find it astounding that such a defender of God's word, as Ehud had proven himself, would add to the word of God has he has here.

 

In his Companion Bible, in his Lexicon, and in his book Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, E. W. Bullinger, who was secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society for 46 years, indicated that there were some errors in translating in the KJV.

 

Did you prove that John took his statement from this book or was that an assumption on your part?

You claimed that there was a needed correction for certain information, but so far you have refused to provide evidence to show that your claim is valid.

Because certain men wrote a book that was said to defend the Textus Receptus and the KJV in the 1800's is not proof that they held the exact same view as the modern or present-day KJV-only position. In addition, can you provide evidence that shows that the founders of the present-day KJV-only position based their position on these earlier authors you mentioned?

 

There is but one Bible. It is man who has made many differering translations, and it is man who sees fit to fight, fuss, and argue over them. The Author needs not a translation as He is already intimately familiar with all of His text.

Sorry, guys. What used to make my blood boil now makes me chuckle at the complete silliness of it. "God needs a bible here on earth." Good one.

And the whole TR/RT vs non-TR/RT is complete foolishness, as well.

God gave us His word, and we would all be better served over studying IT and teaching what IT says instead of spitting and fuming over whether or not my granddaddy's pappy's uncle's cousin's copy is better than your cousin's uncle's pappy's granddaddy's.

I mean, really, people. Do any here think God is uplifted and glorified over all the petty squabbling? Do any here think they are earning anything toward their heavenly reward by trying to split hairs over a man-made translation, or whether that ONE is the be-all-and-end-all? If everyone would stop and think about it, this forum would actually be what it supposed to bo... a place to discuss the merits of the different offerings. Instead it resembles something closer to Hiroshima...

 

Wescott and Hort didn't think it was foolishness. They thought it was important enought to spend sizable chunks of their careers on the matter.

 

If the Scriptures warned concerning adding or taking away God's Words, we see these modern versions are here. That is very obvious.