Inspired Bible

Allow me to quote the proper information...

The only bibles were those from England. After 1611, the only bibles printed in England was the KJV. For over 150 years the KJV was the only choice for Americans except for the few surviving Geneva bibles. After printing began in the US, they reprinted the KJV in spite of England's copyright. There wasn't any other translation even available until the mid to late 1800s.

The original languages didn't use punctuation. The punctuation we have in our bibles was added by the translators to give us clarity. If the punctuation changes from one version to another it is the same as word choices. In other words, the punctuation is not inspired as a jot and tittle were parts of written script and not punctuation.

 

Yes, you are correct. Punctuation was never inspired, for it never was in the Greek and Hebrew in the first place. The Masoretes put it in the Hebrew for our sakes, and it was added by the translators of the NT for more clarity--again for our sakes.
However, there are obvious errors in the KJV. Easter is but one error.
The word "unicorn" is another. There is no such thing as a unicorn. The Hebrew word "rheem" means wild goat, not a Greek mythological creature as a unicorn. It was a wrong translation. There are dozens of such mistakes in the KJV, however good a translation it may be. The reason? It is a translation, translated by fallible men who make mistakes because they are imperfect men. Only God makes no mistakes.

Never said it didn't.

He doesn't, but He does speak of jots and tittles referring to the smallest letter of the alphabet and the smallest part of a letter of the alphabet. He was referring to Hebrew letters. But He was also referring to the original Hebrew. Copyists make mistakes. He was referring to what the prophets actually wrote.

If you are inferring that I or the others in this forum are modernists that personal attack will only land you in hot water, or in trouble with the administration. No need for such personal attacks.

Where and who do you dance with?

 

Ok, I agree with the historical aspect, but the KJV has withstood the test of time.

 

The KJV has lasted 400 years.
The Latin Vulgate lasted well over a thousand years.
Why not just learn Latin instead, for it has stood the test of time much better than the KJV, if that is what you are using as a criteria.

 

The Vulgate (in its many incarnations) has stood the test of time a lot longer than the KJV.

 

wrong, Easter is the right word for we who....., oh, wait a minute, what day is it today? is it 4 Heshvan 5770 or Thursday October 22, 2009 ?

Duh!

Does not, it means a wild beast much like the rhinoceros, now extinct.

What is subtle that most wouldn't see it is how you like to interject mysticism in a version which the translators vehemently denied any such relationship to the Holy Scriptures!

um, yeah, ya did, several times already

OK, so show me your proof of all these mistakes and where is it you get your proof?

The fact is you cannot provide anything but your conjecture on the subject because you wish to elevate your fav version over the Bible.

Conjecture again. Anyone who adheres to a modern version in any fashion is a modernist by that standard alone.

Stop the little victim games.

Oh, and you should be in hot water for questioning my salvation and NEVER appologizing for it too.:tongue3:

Lambs uplifted by the Spirit don't need a partner to dance the way God approves of , why, just ask David's wife!:smilewinkgrin:

 

Wrong, again. latin is used within the confines of the catholic diocysis and medical terminology and biology.

We're speaking in Englsih about an English Bible.

So what day is it? 4 Heshvan 5770, Thor 11 October 2009 or Thursday October 22, 2009 ?

 

Latin was the official language at the time of Christ. Check your facts again. It was not so confined as you seem to think. Every citizen of Rome had to know Latin. It was the Biblical language of the day for over a thousand years.

 

Who's officiating the Bible?

And answer my today's date question.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Give up this foolishness Harold. Easter did not exist at the time of Christ!

The rhinoceros is not extinct. Nor is the rhinoceros indigenous to that land. It is a wrong translation. Rheem means wild ox. But you won't take the time to find that out, because you believe that the KJV is more inspired than the Greek and Hebrew, and therefore there is no need to check the original languages.

Numbers 23:22 God brings them forth out of Egypt; He has as it were the strength of the wild-ox.

Numbers 24:8 God brings him forth out of Egypt; He has as it were the strength of the wild-ox: He shall eat up the nations his adversaries, Shall break their bones in pieces, Smite them through with his arrows.

Job 39:9 "Will the wild ox be content to serve you? Or will he stay by your feeding trough?

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1467971&postcount=1

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1468047&postcount=3


If you had been paying attention another poster already posted dozens of references with plenty of glaring discrepancies. I'll give you one that I remember. Between three editions of the KJV:
the progeny
my progeny
thy progeny

My and thy are opposites of each other. The whole meaning is changed. Which one is right?

Ha Ha. You don't know what my favorite version of the Bible is.

A false accusation backed up with a false premise. Learn your definition of what a modernist is. If you don't know study. Otherwise you are attacking many of the posters that are here. Those kind of attacks are not tolerated. If they are reported, you will be given a warning. The board will not put up with such.

Harold, listen to me. I am not the moderator of this forum, but I am a moderator. This is not a "victim game." You are breaking the rules. It is no joke.

Where have I questioned your salvation?

I was a Catholic. I no longer talk to the dead.

 

Total conjecture and fabricating alie.

you seem to be taking yourself too serious and my referring to modernists is in no way anything you try to fabricate into an attack.

When some one in this forum shows you something you cannot deny you either fabricate attacks or simply deny the facts.

What day is it, are we speaking Hebrew or Greek, maybe latin, but English references to an earlier date are from the gregorian calendar and easter is a specific day in time which can be determined in acts 12. The use of "passover" leaves room for question on whcih exact day it was.

maybe you should learn our English Bible is not subject to something that is dead.

 

To all posters, mye reference to modernists does NOT comply with DHK's definition

 

And your definition of a modernist is wrong.
Words have meanings. One cannot make up their own definitions as they go along. We have dictionaries for a reason. In this case a theological dictionary would do you a lot of good.

Now according to your definition of a modernist, Dr. Bob, an administrator of BB, and a moderator of this forum is a modernist (a liberal). That is a slanderous accusation to make.

 

I've asked for scroptiral support for KJVOism. You provided the psalm. Now you're saying that the psalm doesn't support KJVOism. So where is the scriptural support for KJVOism?

 

Quotes from the KJV Translators

Concerning the Greek and Hebrew:

Concerning a variety of translations:

HankD