KJVo Refuse to Answer

Yes, the KJV does still exist, but in many varying editions. There are hundreds even over
one thousand differences or variations between
KJV editions available today especially if you include the reprints of the 1611. Which of these KJV editions do you claim is the 100% perfect one
so that everyone can obtain this edition?

In addition, the fact remains that the KJV did not exist before 1611, but the word of God did.
If your KJV-only theory undermines or destroys
the foundation or underlying texts that the KJV depends upon, it harms the KJV too.

 

I will be happy to explain my assertion, but I'm still waiting for Phillip to e-mail me his list of differences between the 1611 printing and modern printings of the King James Bible.
Don

 

Dr. Bob,
This is odd, I have not seen you tell so many of these others to proof or retract their outlandish statements. Some of these posters utter absolute lies, proven falsehoods, and yet you let them all slide by. I am preparing to give a full and reasonable explanation and you are demanding haste? Such reminds me of the plights of many of the reformers and their persecutors. "Let patience have her perfect work."
Don

 

I have a list of over 1800 differences or changes between the 1611 edition of the KJV and
the present-day Oxford edition of the KJV in the Scofield Reference Bible. This list shows that D. A. Waite's list of only 421 changes of sound is inaccurate. However, this list does not include all the variations among present-day editions of the KJV.

 

The ultimate KJVO answer. The KJVO version of The Emporer's New Clothes.

119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

But then again maybe it's Latin:

lamed in aeternum Domine verbum tuum permanet in caelo

Or maybe Spanish:
Para siempre, oh Jehovah, permanece tu palabra en los cielos.

How about Dutch?
Lamed. O HEERE! Uw woord bestaat in der eeuwigheid in de hemelen.

Hmm, David and the prophets spoke Hebrew, I wonder if...?

HankD

 

Originally posted by robycop3:
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.

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

Don, the AV 1611 did not exist until 1611. Most likely, parts of it had been translated by 1605, but those parts were NOT the AV 1611 any more than your leg is all of Don and could live on its own without the rest of you.

Lemme rephrase the question you've been skirting: WHERE WAS THE PERFECT, INERRANT WORD OF GOD IN ENGLISH IN 1600?

 

Actually, if memory serves they didn't even start translating until 1608.

 

SteveC:Actually, if memory serves they didn't even start translating until 1608.

Gee, Steve, I didn't know you were THAT old!(LOL)

Seriously, Steve, that sounds correct. I read somewhere those gents received a handsome compensation for their work & were therefore in no hurry to get done & lose their cash cow.

 

Shhhhhhhh!

 

King James Bible Only said:

Answer: The King James Bible.

Amazing! If only the KJV translators had had this 1605 KJV that apparently dropped into a time-hole and six years into the past, they would have saved themselves years of work!

(Only ten posts at the time of writing, and this newbie has already figured out the time-honoured KJV-only tactic of "proof by time travel.")

Answer: Yes. The King James Bible.

Also, proof by obfuscation seems pretty easy to figure out, too.

Excuse me while I laugh.



Had to be done.

 

King James Bible Only said:

I didn't say it takes a Webster's to understand the King James Bible, but nonetheless, shew me the modern version that has correctly identified this animal.

"Shew"? What year is this?

The King James Bible correctly translates this word into "unicorn" but can you point out a "version" that even translates the name of the animal to "rhinoceros"??

Why the scare quotes around "version"?

They don't translate it rhinoceros because it wasn's a rhinoceros any more than it was a unicorn. Rhinos aren't Middle Eastern animals.

If people would quit lying about what a unicorn is

The "unicorn" was well known to the KJV translators. It was a symbol of Scotland, and it was introduced to the royal coat-of-arms in 1603 in honour of James I. It's obviously not a rhinoceros, and it is nothing short of revisionist history on the part of KJV-onlyists to claim it would have meant something different at the time.

Update: Dr. Bob, I just now saw your post (on the next page of the thread to the one I was answering, I believe) saying no more unicorn posts. Sorry!

 

Phillip,
and others,

I gave a simple answer to the question without explanation at first, because I understood you didn't want "beating around the bush" and "blah, blah, blah"ing. Also, I was fairly sure that you and some others would like to hear an explanation of it. I thought, perhaps, with such educated and sharp minds reading the posts, that many of you would have contemplated the statement and come to a realization as to why it is true.
I haven't seen any come to say such yet, but have found posters railing upon me, insulting me, proclaiming me ignorant, stylizing me as a follow of someone named "Ruckman," and some making claims as to why I said such only becuase they were fed a line from a professor or writer as to theories that King James Bible believer's hold.
Well, how then shall we proceed? I could state plainly the case, with reason, or I could let you prove it by asking you some questions. (You being everyone who reads these posts) I think I will do the first and then let you prove it over and over again. We will see how it goes.


The question you asked, Phillip, was: What was the word-for-word, letter-for-letter perfect English Bible in 1605?

I like the wording of the enquiry. In 1605, two years after the 54 Translators began the work that was first printed six years after, the perfect word-for-word, letter-for-letter, Bible in English was the King James Bible. Some have replied that the King James Bible didn't exist, and others have said that only parts of it existed, but the truth is that the entire King James Bible existed at that time, exactly as I have it now, and also existed in 1600 (as was reworded by robycop3), and the King James Bible was in existence even prior to then.
The King James Bible is the word of God. The word of God did not come into existence in 1611 or some few years before, the Bible says, "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Thank you HankD for quoting the passage. If you don't believe the word of God is for ever settled in heaven, you are he that does not believe the Bible and you have the problem, not me. I simply believe the Bible. So, it may be pressed along the same argument of HankD, "maybe Latin...maybe Spanish...How about Dutch?...Hmm, David...spoke Hebrew, I wonder if...?" Wonder if what? if David was talking about the Bible in Hebrew? Hmm, I wonder if anyone out there is thinking what I'm thinking, hmm... Let's read Psalm 119:89 again, does it say, "For ever, O LORD, the Hebrew scripture is settled in heaven"? oh, that is not the quote, hmm. What does the Bible say? "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." This is just one of many, many verses we could look at, but it will suffice. God's word, the scriptures of God, the words of the LORD, every jot and tittle, is for ever settled in heaven.
The fact, I assert, is that the Bible in English, in heaven, is the King James Bible, and it always was.
I will let some of you consider this and agree or disagree. Some will make snide comments and others will say that they want to hear more, I look forward to both, and may continue with more information which some of the posters desperately need.
Don Ramsey

 

Don,

If that is your contention, are you saying that every language has a Bible settled in heaven, or that no one but English speakers have a word for word and letter for letter perfect Bible?

Also, is it settled in heaven despite all of the alleged printer errors? If it is truly perfect than there is no room for printer errors. Why then does the KJV differ with every publisher? Why is Saviour sometimes spelled "Savior"? If it, as you claim letter by letter perfect that which of those is perfect? Which one is "settled in heaven?" I ask the same question which has been asked over and over again.

Which KJV edition is the perfect, letter for letter, word for word, settled in heaven version?

 

So in other words, when KJV-onlyists criticize Bible believers for not declaring as a final authority a Bible that can be seen, heard, read, felt, or handled, that's an irrefutable indictment against modern translations of the Word of God.

But it's OK when the KJV-onlyists say the same thing about the preserved Word of God before 1611.

Paging Ed Edwards, we got another double standard for you.

 

No obfuscation necessary, just answer the simple question. We have been told that there is a perfect word for word, letter for letter, settled in heaven version available to todays reader. That leaves no room for printer errors.

Which one is it? We will have to have publisher, year, and printing to know for sure which fits the conditions laid out for us.

Word for word
Letter for letter

 

jots and tittles do not exist in English. You will find them in the Masoretic (Traditional) Hebrew text where they have been for millenia exactly the same and none of them have passed away just as Jesus said.

HankD

 

I've got to go to the airport and get my daughter !!!

I wonder if I will have an answer when I get back?

Which edition and printing of the KJV is letter for letter, word for word, settled in heaven perfect?

My guess is I will not be answered. But that's okay, my daughter will be here for 3 weeks

 

Some questions on a different angle to this idea:

Since the KJV is in English, is it necessary for one to be able to understand English in order to read THE Word of God?

Are those who don't read or speak English condemned to be without THE Word of God?

If the answer is NO, then what is THE Word of God for them? If it is YES, aren't we painting ourselves in a corner?