King James Bible

With all due respect to YOU, Sir, he's using an EXCUSE and not a legitimate reason. He wantsta make people think he's right, despite the glaring LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for his "position". I have observed your site before, but , as I haven't been a teen for over 40 years, i didn't try to join it.

As Tiny Tim said, we can DISCUSS without quarreling, as we're doing here.

 

The bereans searched the Scriptuires to see if Paul had the straight skinny or was just jive-talking. After all, Paul's material was somewhat different from what they'd been taught all their lives up till then.

Now, what happens when one searches the Scriptures for support for any One-versionism? One comes up empty. Therefore, KJVO or any other one-versionism theory stands as not true by lack of supporting evidence.

 

Blammo, I've written a small article proving Dr. Gipp wrong. I can PM or email it to ya(or anyone else interested) if ya like.

 

Of coures many of us have known for a long time that Gipp doesn't have a clue what he's talking about...

:tongue3: :BangHead: :laugh:

 

Advance warning - this thread is quickly approaching the 20 page limit at which point it will be closed

 

So WHO does?

 

Fire away, Brother, unlike some folks, I am not afraid to listen to other views. (My ignore list remains empty) :laugh: :tongue3:

 

OK, Sir! But as I found while trying to send the article to another member, it'll take a series of PMs, as it's too long to fit into just one. Just wanted ya to know I wasn't trying to be smart-alec or spammish by sending a series of PMs.

And after ya read it, feel free to criticize it if ya wish.

 

Roby,

Thank you. I'll let ya know what I think.

 

There ya are! Managed to make it in 4 messages. If that didn't work, I'll try "Plan B"!

 

It worked.

 

Peperoni:

I cannot think of much more to add to this thread at present except that I hope you examine BOTH sides of the issue and pay especial attention to the fact that KJVO is NOT SUPPORTED by the Scriptures as found in the KJV...was NOT SUPPORTED by the MAKERS of the KJV...was brought into national attention by a series of authors who copied from a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST official's book...and has no provable points otherwise supporting it. There are only TWO valid reasons to be KJVO...that the KJV is the only version available for some...and PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

Lemme remind you again that you are completely free to use the KJV alone, without that dead bird of the man-made KJVO doctrine hanging around your neck.

 

Amen Brother Robocop3 - Preach it! :thumbs:

 

Is it O.K. with you if I use the KJV as my FINAL AUTHORITY amongst the various bible versions?

 

Fine with me. Verify if that is alright with your local church.

Just out of human interest, which of the non-agreeing KJVs
will you be using for your FINAL AUTHORITY?

I use the following two KJVs on a daily basis:

KJV1611 Edition (actually about the third edition in 1611
since the first editon no longer exists)

KJV1769 Edition (or maybe 1762, or maybe even the
American Bible Society edition of 1850, my Bible doesn't
even say what it is). If your KJV fails to tell you which one
it is - why are they hidding the fact there are different versions
among the KJVs?

 

I certainly would not use the NEW King James Bible. [Attack on Bibles deleted]

I currently use the www.blueletterbible.org version which is based upon Stephen's Textus Receptus (1550).

I own a Dake's Annotated Reference Bible (KJV) and an Old Scofield Study Bible (KJV) but seldom use them for word studies as the Blue Letter Online bible's search engine serves me better.

I would NEVER consider any bible based upon the Westcott-Hort (1881) with Nestle/Aland Variants text as my final authority.

So, for me, it is a matter of knowing which versions NOT to use rather than foolishly debating whether to use a 1611 KJV or a 1769 KJV. I haven't investigated Noah Webster's 1833 version thoroughly but I would give it some consideration.

 

What process would you use to reconcile any differences you
might find between one KJV and the next KJV?

IMHO all valid Enlgish Versions contain the Written Word of God.
If there appears to be a difference, then I maintain we can,
with the Holy Spirit's guidance figure out what is the meaning
of the variance.

Here is the hierarchy of people I'd check with:

1. myself
2. other trustworthy close-to-God individuals
3. my local church
4. out-in-the-open-air discussions like this one.

In fact, I beleive it is the purpose, duty. goal, meaning
of this Versions/translations Forum of the Baptist Board
to discuss among ourselves what the difference is within versions
or among versions.

I'm firmly convinced that God has devinely preserved all
his message in all the valid English Version.
So part of His message might be in one version, another
part in the other version. So by studying among the versions,
and within a version - we fullfill the requirments of God
to do His Sacred Will as described in His Holy Written Word.

 

On-line varian KJVs

On-line KJV variant #1:

http://www.bartleby.com/
The King James Version 2000
Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights,
he was afterward ahungered.

[ follow this trail:
Reference; The Bible; The King James Version; Matthew 4 ]


http://www.christnotes.org/
The King James Version
Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights,
he was afterward an hungred.

http://www.servantofjesuschrist.com/
quoted St. Matthew 4:2:
And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights,
he was afterward a hungered.
(my paper KJV1873 reads like this)

http://www.Crosswalk.com/
The King James Version (Authorized)
Matthew 4:2
And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights,
he was afterward an hungred.
(My Grandmother's Bible is like this.
From the title page: New York: American Bible
Society, 1851.)

The "hee was afterward an hungred" is found in
my paper 1611 Edition KJV and on-line at e-Sword.com



On-line KJV variant #2:

http://www.bartleby.com/
The King James Version x
1 Cor 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat,
asking no question for conscience' sake:


http://www.christnotes.org/
The King James Version
25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat,
asking no question for conscience sake:

http://www.servantofjesuschrist.com/
10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

http://www.Crosswalk.com/
The King James Version (Authorized)
10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat,
asking no question for conscience sake:

e-Sword.com KJV1769 with Strongs:
1Co 10:25 Whatsoever3956 is sold4453 in1722 the meat market,3111 that eat,2068 asking no question350, 3367 for conscience sake:1223, 4893

online variant #3

Which KJV is correct?
How can you tell?
Who desides?
What doctrine is hinging on the
punctuation of this sentence?

Colossians 2:23 (KJV1611 Edition):

Which things haue in deed a shew of wisedome in will-worship
and humilitie, and ||neglecting of the body,
not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

Sidenote: || Or, punsihing , or not sparing

Colossians 2:23 (KJV Crosswalk.com):

Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship,
and humility, and neglecting of the body,
not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

Colossians 2:23 (KJV E-Sword.com):

Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will-worship,
and humility, and neglecting of the body;
not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

Colossians 2:23 (KJV1873 Edition):

Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship,
and humility, and neglecting of the body:
not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

 

Ed said:

I'm firmly convinced that God has devinely preserved all
his message in all the valid English Version.

R J replies:

That's a good one, Ed. The only version that supports your declaration scripturally is the KJV. All modern versions of the bible have CHANGED Psalm 12:6-7 to read otherwise.

 

Sure...Use whichever version(s) ya like. What's NOT right is proclaiming that any one version (in English) is the ONLY valid version. Such an idea is NOT found in Scripture.