kjv bible

PraiseHim · Jul 29, 2003

I hope this comes out right.....

If you believe the KJV bible is the only correct bible for this time. How do you explain the errors in it. Like spelling errors etc. There is a vs in 1SAM that says something about 700 charriots and then in chron. its talkin about the same thing but it says 7000 charriots. There was a copiest mistake there. So for someone to say they believe every word and comma to be true in the KJV. How can that be when there are little mistakes like that? And I saw how when they are copying the KJV now you have to be careful cause they are adding stuff in to prevert it. Like not capitolizing spirit in some spots etc. Are we suppose to use a certain year of the KJV?

I am a KJV believer. I don't use any other versions cause I believe the KJV came from the correct line of manuscripts.

Is anyone following me here?

thanks

Johnv · Jul 29, 2003

Originally posted by PraiseHim:
I am a KJV believer. I don't use any other versions cause I believe the KJV came from the correct line of manuscripts.

I'm a KJV believer, too. I use it for study, prayer, and meditation. However, since there's no biblical support for one translation over others, I don't believe the KJV has translational authority over any other translations.

Baptist in Richmond · Jul 29, 2003

Originally posted by PraiseHim:
Are we suppose [sic] to use a certain year of the KJV?

Of course you knew that I would chime in on this!!
IMHO, if you love the AV as much as I do, you need to get a 1611, or a good copy of it as a real AV can cost over $50,000!

Forever settled in heaven · Jul 29, 2003

Originally posted by PraiseHim:
I don't use any other versions cause I believe the KJV came from the correct line of manuscripts.

what correct line of manuscripts?

Haruo · Jul 29, 2003

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PraiseHim:
I don't use any other versions cause I believe the KJV came from the correct line of manuscripts.

what correct line of manuscripts?

[/QUOTE]One that's never been to Egypt, even though Egypt is where they took Jesus to preserve him from the corruption that was in Jerusalem. Another way in which the first shall be last etc.

Haruo

Anti-Alexandrian · Jul 29, 2003

what correct line of manuscripts?

The Protestant Syrian-Byzantine manuscripts of the reformation;not Jesuit/RCC manuscripts of the dark ages.

Wisdom Seeker · Jul 29, 2003

Originally posted by PraiseHim:
I don't use any other versions cause I believe the KJV came from the correct line of manuscripts.

I use the KJV because it was translated from the Textus Receptus or Preserved Text. The Textus Receptus agreed 99% in over 5,000 texts of this type that were found, with each other. And considering that it was written over a period of 1,600 years on 3 different continents in 3 languages, using 40 different authors, I find that nothing short of miraculous.

The two texts that were found to be older, or the restored text as it is often called, did not agree even with each other. There was an average of 10 descrepancies per page. And part of the book of Mark was missing. But the people at the time it was discovered believed "Older must be better" and so it was used despite it's many textual errors.

All Bibles including the Latin Volgate or Catholic Bible are based on the Restored Text, not the Preserved Text.

And that is my basis for relying on the King James Version as the more accurate of versions out there.

I also don't subscribe to the theory that majority usage makes something more right either. But if you know me at all, you already know that.

This is a statement of what I believe. I offer it to give information and answer a question that was asked to the best of my ability. Not to judge anyone who believes otherwise as some do. I think each person needs to make up their own mind and come to their own reasoning about such things.

Terry_Herrington · Jul 29, 2003

Haruo said,

"One that's never been to Egypt, even though Egypt is where they took Jesus to preserve him from the corruption that was in Jerusalem. Another way in which the first shall be last etc."

Good point. If Egypt is always representative of evil, why did God command Joseph to take Mary and Jesus there to flee Herod's wrath? Are we supposed to flee to the world?

Alcott · Jul 29, 2003

Originally posted by WisdomSeeker:
And part of the book of Mark was missing.

And do you abide by that particular part of the book of Mark that was missing? Do you pick up serpents? Do you drink poison? Do speak in other languages? Do you lay hands on the sick?... these are the "signs of them that believe," according to that part which is 'missing' in some manuscripts.

Daughter of the King · Jul 30, 2003

Dear WisdomSeeker:

I use the KJV because it was translated from the Textus Receptus or Preserved Text. The Textus Receptus agreed 99% in over 5,000 texts of this type that were found, with each other. And considering that it was written over a period of 1,600 years on 3 different continents in 3 languages, using 40 different authors, I find that nothing short of miraculous.

The two texts that were found to be older, or the restored text as it is often called, did not agree even with each other. There was an average of 10 descrepancies per page. And part of the book of Mark was missing. But the people at the time it was discovered believed "Older must be better" and so it was used despite it's many textual errors.

All Bibles including the Latin Volgate or Catholic Bible are based on the Restored Text, not the Preserved Text.

And that is my basis for relying on the King James Version as the more accurate of versions out there.

Thank-you VERY much for your clarify information. It's probably out there and available on the web, but I generally have not been involved in this discussion until recently. I'm laughing at myself, really. I hadn't exactly had too strong an opinion in this area, but you know the LORD.

HE has maintained my generally using the KJV - for reading, for meditation/devotionals, and for study. I have a few others sort of for extras as I and my late husband have received bibles as gifts over the years. But it is the KJV I open for myself. MUST be the LORD so carefully guiding and directing me!

God bless!

Princess
Because, you see, I am a daughter of The KING!

Forever settled in heaven · Jul 30, 2003

Originally posted by Haruo:
One that's never been to Egypt, even though Egypt is where they took Jesus to preserve him from the corruption that was in Jerusalem. Another way in which the first shall be last etc.

both lines, n all other lines are affected--that's why TR needs text crit as much as the critical text n majority text.

n that's also why God says He's got His Word forever settled in ...

which, of course, KJBOs r wont to misinterpret as a denial of God's Word on earth

sometimes i wonder why i bother ...

PraiseHim · Jul 30, 2003

Wisdomseeker. I totally agree with you. That is why I use the KJV.

So no one still answered my ?

Since copiest are changing little things in the KJV bible how do you know if you have a good one? Is it going to end up corupted? I wouldn't think so cause God said he'll preserve his word but they are already making small changes to it.

Dr. Bob · Jul 30, 2003

Originally posted by WisdomSeeker:
All Bibles including the Latin Volgate or Catholic Bible are based on the Restored Text, not the Preserved Text.

Talk about "revisionist" history. Does everyone understand the "newspeak" (excuse me, Orwell) here?

The OLDEST Greek texts (Sinaiaticus, Vaticanus) are now called "RESTORED"

The NEWEST Greek texts (all copies of copies of copies from the Eastern Rites churches) are now called "PRESERVED"

Does that ring as simply dishonest wording to make "A" look like "B" and "B" look like "A"?

Sounds like another ruckmanism to me. Sad.

Rakka Rage · Jul 30, 2003

I don't believe the KJV has translational authority over any other translations.

Acts 8:37 != ""

Forever settled in heaven · Jul 30, 2003

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I don't believe the KJV has translational authority over any other translations.

Acts 8:37 != "" [/QUOTE]Rev 22:18 !=""

Johnv · Jul 30, 2003

Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
Acts 8:37 != ""

Please explain. I've looked in 5 versions. They all include it in either v37, or footnoted in v36. It reads, Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I see nothing in this verse which says that the KJV, or any other translation, has translational authority over any other translations.

Baptist in Richmond · Jul 30, 2003

Originally posted by Johnv:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Rakka Rage:
[qb]Acts 8:37 != ""

Please explain. I've looked in 5 versions. They all include it in either v37, or footnoted in v36. It reads, Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I see nothing in this verse which says that the KJV, or any other translation, has translational authority over any other translations. [/QUOTE]Check the marginal notes in your NKJV, or visit any KJV-Onlyist website. This is nothing new, and if this is being offered to establish the superiority of the AV, it utterly fails. It is also found in my Geneva Bible which predates the AV, not to mention my copies of the Tyndale and Wiclif Versions of God's Holy Word.
Don't get me wrong: I love the AV more than Rakka Rage, or ANY KJV-Onlyist on this board. I do not, however, subscribe to KJV-Onlyism.

PraiseHim · Jul 30, 2003

If your saying I'm a ruckmanite. WRONG! I can't stand the guy.

I don't care if someone uses another version of the bible. I believe God uses those versions as well. I just choose to use the KJV.

Wisdom Seeker · Jul 30, 2003

Talk about "revisionist" history. Does everyone understand the "newspeak" (excuse me, Orwell) here?

The OLDEST Greek texts (Sinaiaticus, Vaticanus) are now called "RESTORED"
The NEWEST Greek texts (all copies of copies of copies from the Eastern Rites churches) are now called "PRESERVED"

Does that ring as simply dishonest wording to make "A" look like "B" and "B" look like "A"?
Sounds like another ruckmanism to me. Sad.

This is what my church taught our congregation, that the older text had a lot of errors in it...and is commonly referred to as the "restored text".

I don't think it's "Revisionist History" "Newspeak" "Orwellian" or "Ruckmanism" (Alan Ruckman?) to have a belief based on what a church has taught a person. Or to even be wrong for that matter.

I appreciate your educated view points. And I am not opposed to be corrected if you think I am in error. But do you think you could tone down the disparaging remarks just a tad?

And who the heck is Ruckman that he should have a whole "ism" named after him anyway?

Askjo · Jul 30, 2003

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:

The OLDEST Greek texts (Sinaiaticus, Vaticanus) are now called "RESTORED"

Please show me the Scriptures referring to the "Restored."

For example, the "preserved" texts refer to Psalm 12:6-7.

kjv bible

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Administrator

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member