Spread of the "Only" Sect

Just exactly where are you getting this stuff? I am proud that my Bible was translated by the men it was, men who loved and served God and who, by their actions gave us the Word of God. It seems that, since the anti-KJV people cannot attack the scholarship of the King James, as no MV anywhere can match it, are reduced to attacking their very faith!
In case you havnt noticed, the bibles YOU claim to reverence have had people on them that I would not trust the slightest bit! They also had people on them that I truly believe honestly thought that they were doing the right thing. Some have since renounced it. Take Hodgeson(sp?) one of the members of the NASB commitee. He has his written and taped testimony on the NASBs corrupt and dishonest practices.
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper </font>[/QUOTE]Thumper, I think you need to study more. It's a fact that most people did not automatically accept the KJV as a valid translation. It was forced on them. Many stayed with their previous versions. Having a version forced on ones self by the government is not voluntary acceptance of it. It certainly doesn't show an approval for it. King James was dishonest in his practice of using force to distribute this "anti-Romish" version (though he himself was the POPE-LIKE head of the Church of England), and there are still lingering questions about King James himself.

 

Because you have given us your opinion which you presume to be fact. How about giving us some documentation? What is the source of your information? I would like to read the written testimony.

 

Have you ever checked the actual Church of England doctrinal views held by the KJV translators? Several if not the majority of the KJV translators belonged to the "High Church"
party of the Church of England that would later
be called the "Anglo-Catholic." One KJV translator wrote a book defending the making of the sign of the cross on a child's forehead during baptism. Another important KJV translator wrote a book defending the Latin Vulgate.

Several of the KJV translators were members of the High Commission Court that persecuted other believers and even had a Baptist burned at the stake for his faith in 1611. In 1614, a Baptist named Leonard Busher claimed that "his Majesty's
bishops and ministers had been armed and weaponed with fire and sword and not with Scripture" (Goadby's 1871 book BYE-PATHS IN BAPTIST HISTORY, p. 80).

 

Because they has sense enough to use the right MSS,and to reject the Hesychian/Jesuit mss of North Africa.

 

No one had to "force" it on me.

 

A_A, always a ray of sunshine

Of course, no one had to force it on you. Within a generation of every other transaltion being banned, the KJV was the bible of choice...well, of no choice.

The KJV was in all probability the transaltion you were either raised on, or have been preached out of, for your entire Christian life. Nothing wrong with that...but that doesn't put it on the pedelstal you want us to.

The KJV is a translation. A translation made from a compiled text of only a few manuscripts and a hefty dose of the RCC's Latin Vulgate. It is not the be-all-and-end-all, nor is it perfect. It IS the word of God, but not the only word of God.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

As I recall, the KJV was translated partly from the original Latin Vulgate.(not Jeromes) I may be wrong about this but that is what I heard. And to those that laugh at the scholarship of the KJV translators, why dont you post a list of KJV translators and a list of the translators of the bible you support and contrast them and show why yours are superior. And about that book that one of them wrote, I will try and get a copy of it when I go to the library next.
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper

 

Incorrect. It is your bibles that come from just a few manuscripts, the vast weight of evidence supports the KJV translation. Up to 95% in the dead sea scrolls area. And my 5 year old sister could tell you that things that are different are not the same. The many words and verses taken out in the new versions make them different [attack on word of God snipped]
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper

[ October 25, 2004, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Because you have given us your opinion which you presume to be fact. How about giving us some documentation? What is the source of your information? I would like to read the written testimony. </font>[/QUOTE]It is quite fair to ask for proof and I am glad to provide what I know about it. This came from a tape by a Brother James Knox called "Answering a college professor". I will see if I can find the tape as soon as possible.
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper

 

No one had to "force" it on me. </font>[/QUOTE]Me either. And before anyone says it, I was NOT "indocrinated" by my parents.

 

I quite agree, however as far as you guys are concerned anyone that doesnt agree with you is a dope.

Let me think...boy this is hard, um...maybe because their qualifications beat your bibles into dust?

 

Thanks.

 

KJVBibleThumper
"the KJV was translated partly from the original Latin Vulgate.(not Jeromes)"
"
Going from memory here. 3 distinctly different latin Bibletranslations (African, European, Italic) had been made prior to the day Jerome got his assignment (an accurate translation in literary latin to serve as the standard Bible for the Latin speaking world). Between these 3 versions 38 codices survive to the present day. None of them complete.
All English Bible translations ever made have been done from copies of Jerome's Vulgate.

 

While it would be difficult to find some of the writings of most of the KJV translators at most libraries, you might be able to find some by
one of them--Lancelot Andrewes. Some of his writings were reprinted in the series of books
entitled LIBRARY OF ANGLO-CATHOLIC THEOLOGY.
Volumes 5 & 6 have some of the writings of KJV
translator Lancelot Andrewes. THE WORKS OF LANCELOT ANDREWES were also reprinted in 1969 by
AMS Press.

 

Because they has sense enough to use the right MSS,and to reject the Hesychian/Jesuit mss of North Africa. </font>[/QUOTE]"Hesychian does not compute. How can the 3rd and 4th century
source texts of the Holy Bible be construed
as "Jesuit"? THe Jesuits come
over 1000 years after the Alexandirian texts.

BTW, do you have an alibi for your location
on 22 November 1963? We are still looking
for all the conspirators.

 

I am going from memory here too. But I seem to recall reading that Jeromes Vulgate was not the first Vulgate but was in fact a translation made by the Roman Catholic Church and called the "Vulgate"(ie:"common" or "poor" I think is what Vulgate means) in an attempt to make people think that it was the original Latin Vulgate. And that the original was partly used by the KJV translators. I could be wrong on this and I mean to look it up and research it...just like I mean to research a lot of things but I never seem to have the time anymore with school and all.
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper

 

Its not just him. There were many as qualified as he was. And do you mind providing proof for this please?
In Christ,
KJVBibleThumper