KJVo Refuse to Answer

Because in 1617 the same folks who transmitted this Word via translation in "PERFECT FORM" began to correct this “perfect” Word of God under the direction of the Crown.

So, either they and/or the king of England were wrong to do this or God made some mistakes in that He was unable to control the translators, typesetters and/or printer if we are to believe your premise.

They were in fact the first “Bible correctors” of the AV1611.

This is an amazing and unique combination of Ruckman "advanced revelation" and
orewellian "double-speak" (IMO of course).


HankD

 

The only problem is, GG, that your KJV is nothing more than a version, and even the translators recognized this fact. We're not saying it isn't the Word of God, and yes, in doctrine, as the MV's are, perfect in doctrine and fundamentals. It, however, is not perfect to the point of perfection (no mistakes in translation, and WORD FOR WORD as many here would have us believe and have yet to prove) and neither are any of the MV's. Does this mean God hasn't kept His Word? No, by no means. It does, however, mean that man, translators, are and have been fallible and have indeed made many, many mistakes in the translation of ANY version. Otherwise, there would have been no need for revisions of any of the versions. No one is attacking the KJV, but they are attacking the misrepresentation of the MV's by the KJV Onlyists who will not even admit what the translators themselves admitted, that the KJV is only a translation, updated from other versions, etc. To believe anything else is incorrect, and those are the facts.

 

Seems YOU are the one casting doubt!!

Tell me,what did people do BEFORE 1880 when W&H sat down to correct the Bible???
Did they have a word perfect Bible?? Or did God have to wait on two Papal SPIES to come allong to finaly "get it right?" </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but I sincerely doubt that I am the one casting doubt by any means. I don't misrepresent the Word of God, and have made clear where I stand on the KJV. You would have us believe that a bunch of Anglican baby baptizers, and attackers of those who held to the Bibles preceding the KJV as "Holy, honest men"? Don't think so, unless of course you would use revisionist history. Nobody said that W/H finally got it right, and there were other versions based on the same underlying texts they used. So, who's the one trying to cast doubts and dispersions? MV's have been around for many many years, since nearly the beginning of the 20th century. KJV Onlyism has only been around for the past 25-35 years or so. They are the ones causing people to doubt by lying about the MV's and their content, intentionally or not.

 

So, what? We have to now have an 1828 Websters dictionary to understand the KJV? Not good. I thought the translation of the Bible into the everyday English of the common man was supposed to make it easier to read. Hmmmm....strange. I don't see in the Bible where I need an 1828 Websters dictionary to understand a translation. Can't you people see, as English evolves, revisions/updates need to be made, and for the most part they have not, at least not concerning the KJV...at least not since 1880 (of course, I'm leaving out the newer versions of the KJV, as most still consider them MV's.... ) .

 

I guess todays Webster's wouldn't do in explaining some of the words....especially uh, well the one mentioned in the quotes above...It still calls is "usually a horse". Hmmm.

 

King James Bible Only:Answer:The King James Bible(Answering Philip's question concerning the perfect British Bible of 1605)

You have one slight prob with that answer, Sir: The KJV didn't exist in 1605.

 

Just wanted to try and answer Phillips 1st question. By the way Jim and Greg I say Amen to your earlier post on The Word of God.
Phillip, I think the point you are trying to make is that the KJV was not around in 1605 so how can you be, as some may say "KJVO". Well as i have stated before on other post i believe God has preserved His Word without error through the received text. So if an english speaking person wanted to read the Word of God before 1611 they would need to read from a Bible that was translated word-for-word (NOT thought for thought 2 Tim. 3:16)from the received text (textus receptus). So here would be their choices:
1526 Tyndale's Bible ( did not get it completed before he was martyered.)
1535 Coverdale's Bible (1st Complete english translation form the received text.)
1537 Matthews Bible ( 2nd Complete Bible in the english language. RT)
1539-41 The Great Bible (Named for it's size, was simply a revision of the Tyndale Matthew Bible)
1557-60 The Geneva Bible (first complete translation into English from the originals throughout)
1568- The Bishops Bible

 

Hello, Brad 14!

In following your list, the KJVOs still have a major prob: NONE of the versions you named is like any other. According to KJVO standards, ONLY ONE can be correct. But the KJVOs say God promised to preserve His word UNTO ALL GENERATIONS, while several of the Bibles you name above were written within the same generation, and are different from each other. This leaves only two possibilities: either GOD is wrong or the KJVOs are wrong. Which one do YOU choose?

 

Philip: 1. What was the word-for-word, letter-for-letter perfect English Bible in 1605?

King James Bible Only:Answer: The King James Bible.

Impossible...It didn't yet exist.

That is the simple answer, I can explain it Biblically, historically, and logically if you like.

Then please DO. Since 1982, I've been reading virtually every pro-KJVO book or article there there is, that's been nationally published...and many local ones which are generally clones of older nationally-published ones. NOT ONE of them can justify the KJVO myth by Scripture; the Scriptures they quote are applicable to every valid version in any given language. The skewed history as presented by the KJVOs is usually incomplete and/or altered to match the KJVO view...and the KJVO myth defies all HONEST logic. It was invented by a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL and spread in the modern media by two dishonest authors. I can easily verify those facts...can YOU verify YOURS?? I'm sure Philip will be as interested as I am, since he, same as I, has NEVER received an honest or factual answer from any KJVO yet concerning some basic cardinal problems with the KJVO myth.

 

And whatever happened to the KJVO mantra "Which I can hold in my hand".

Someone has just made again the often claimed proposition that the 1611 existed "out there" in parts or pieces or fragmented awaiting 1611 to be pieced together.

Well that is exactly what those who promote the crtical text say that the Word of God exists in the several thousands of mss that have been preserved.

Remarkably these several 1000's of mss have been compiled into one standard text modernly called the The Textus Receptus.

Yes there are several versions of the Textus Receptus just as there are several versions of the KJV (1611-1853) due to the process of time and corrections of discovered mistakes.

Why can the KJVO allow themselves this claim about the AV (a compilation of fragments) but we cannot make that claim about the TR and the original language mss?

Of course the KJVO can one-up any critical text supporter with the "fact" that God had to wait until 20th-21st century for a certain individual to discover and publish the key to the several hundred 1611AV "advanced revelations" (which were in reality "mistakes" in disguise) which said individual discovered, then wrote a book about them and then went to the bank with the proceeds thereof.

HankD

[ December 20, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

A few months ago a KJVO type said that the use of the phrase "The Christ" was a signature usage of the New Age philosophy.

Matthew 16:16

1611AV ...Thou art Christ...
1769KJV ...Thou art the Christ...

So which is correct the 1611AV or the "New Age" 1769 revision?

HankD

 

gps: "I just don't like the way they read in many instances so I reject them."

Seems like that sums the issue up from the KJVO perspective.

In contrast, perhaps *I* don't like the way the KJV reads in Jude 25 as opposed to the RSV because the KJV omits the phrase "through Jesus Christ our Lord":

KJV To the only wise God our Saviour, [be] glory and majesty....

RSV To the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty....

Of course, neither am I pleased that the RSV omits "wise".

So perhaps my solution should be (I speak as a fool) to *conflate* both the KJV and RSV and thereby read an "improved" version that translates a "better" text that happens to appear in *no* existing manuscript:

"To the only wise God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, [be] glory and majesty.....

Sounds good to me, and theologically accurate to boot. But then, I just happen to like the way it reads, and am not worried about any evidence to the contrary (I still speak as a fool).

 

Sir: I'm sorry, but you have the problem, for the King James Bible did most certainly exist.
Don