Is the KJV of God or man?

The KJV is the Word of God because the KJV superority is 99% (5210 of 5225 MSS) manuscript evidences. It is the best translation available for English-speaking people today. Therefore the 99% is of God. Most modern versions are supported by only 1% (45 of 5255 MSS) manuscript evidences. Therefore modern versions are not the Word of God. </font>[/QUOTE]If you call the KJV the actual word of God then what do you call all other translations in other languages?

 

That's the biggest spin I've seen in quite a while. You'd make a good politician.

 

Now Brian... you know that isn't fair. You're denying KJVOnlyism a double standard. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, sorry. I forgot. Just trying to get them to think about both sides of 1611.

 

BrianT, to be perfectly honest I know nothing of the geneva bible.
I know the KJV is of God and it is all I use. </font>[/QUOTE]Which KJV do you use? Does that make the others less than the one you use? So you like using a translation that was translated using 12th century manuscripts or later? At the time they didn't have those that date back to the second century.

 

It is from God to the degree that it is more accurate and faithful to the original manuscripts than all other translations.

Poppycock; balderdash; bullfeathers; and Teddy Bear stuffing!

I rarely post any more on this silly 'KJVO' delusion, so I make it short and sweet when I do.

 

&lt;There are many that try to correct the KJV's wording and accuracy...so is that book from God or not?&gt;

Seeing as how we know who wrote it, it's definitely from MAN, a translation of a translation of a translation of God's word.

That's not to say God didn't exert some influence over the translation, but there's absolutely no basis, Scriptural or scientific, to assign any exclusivity to God's influence over the KJV or any other one translation.

 

&lt;I know the KJV is of God and it is all I use.&gt;

That's your right. However, I know several other English BVs are also just as much of God, and I use them also, especially when I need to read God's word in modern English to someone.

KJVO is a man-made false doctrine.

 

Is KJVOnlyism of God or man? Please provide proof, either way.

 

The KJV is the Word of God because the KJV superority is 99% (5210 of 5225 MSS) manuscript evidences. It is the best translation available for English-speaking people today. Therefore the 99% is of God. Most modern versions are supported by only 1% (45 of 5255 MSS) manuscript evidences. Therefore modern versions are not the Word of God. </font>[/QUOTE]If you call the KJV the actual word of God then what do you call all other translations in other languages? </font>[/QUOTE]If other translations (like the KJV in English tongue) in other languages are accurate, then they are also the Word of God.

The GraceWay Bible Society has accurate foreign Bible translations for any foreigners around the World.

For example, you are a missionary to Japan, you would ask the GraceWay Bible Society for sending you some Japanese Bibles.

 

The KJV is the Word of God because the KJV superority is 99% (5210 of 5225 MSS) manuscript evidences. It is the best translation available for English-speaking people today. Therefore the 99% is of God. Most modern versions are supported by only 1% (45 of 5255 MSS) manuscript evidences. Therefore modern versions are not the Word of God. </font>[/QUOTE]And so you would support infant baptism? The translators of the KJV did.

 

Why dont you deal with the real issue here:the PRODUCT they produced;the most hated book on the planet:the King James Bible..THAT is the real root of your problem and also for about 90% of the people on this board;FINAL AUTHORITY......

 

The KJB is of both:as per Jeremiah 36.God uses men to accomplish His will.

 

Infant baptism? Please show me, what Scripture in the KJV that the translators produced?

 

That is the reason they [KJV translators] rendered the term "I baptize you WITH water..." in Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, and John 1:33. The NASB translates that term "I baptize IN water." "In water," "With water," or "By water" are all possible renderings, but it is obvious the reason the KJV guys chose "With."

 

Yes,that is to distinguish between the MANY baptizims in the New Testament,for example:with water, with the Holy Ghost,and with fire.

 

Yes,that is to distinguish between the MANY baptizims in the New Testament,for example:with water, with the Holy Ghost,and with fire. </font>[/QUOTE]"In" would have done the job the same way as far as distinguishing it. "In" is a more accurate and correct translation. Not that I'm excpecting you to agree or even look it up, mind you...

 

So you have to admit then that the NASB and NIV in modern English are also the word of God. They meet the qualifications you put forth here.

 

The King James Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired, word of God. However, I do believe that some of the modern versions contain enough of God's word for a person to be saved, just as a tract. Even God would not allow the devil to get 100% victory.