The reason I am KJBO

Since the different KJV editions all have differences, then it stands to reason that, at most, only one edition of the KJV could be 100% correct and thus God's pure word. Which edition is to be considered God's pure word?

 

I doubt that EVERY version/translation is 100% correct. Translations are done by men who are fallible and corrupt no matter how many letters are behind their name or how pious they may be. Every effort by man will be the same as he is, and that is imperfect. That includes the KJV, by the way.

Does this mean that I doubt God's promises? Not at all. I'm sorry if that is something you can't get hold of but it is the plain unadulterated truth. I know God is a lot bigger than we are and that He doesn't have to play by the rules we lay down. He said He would preserve His word and He will... with or without us. The RT and the CT could both be wrong and statistically both are wrong due to the number of manuscripts and the variations between them (as well as the fragments, etc). But in spite of all of this God continues to preserve His word.

Can I point to any specific one and say that "This is it"? No, and it does not bother me in the least. Why? Because God is still on the throne and He is still in control. He will take care of His word despite our efforts. We are called to worship Him, serve Him, and obey Him. We are not called to try to make His promise a reality as He is already doing that just fine and dandy without us.

I fight the KJVO heresy pretty strongly for one main reason and that is that it takes the focus off of the Author and puts it on a single translation made by men using limited resources and pursuing a specific agenda laid out by a king who wanted things his way. It makes the KJV an idol that is worship and adored. That is abhorrent to me and is the same to God. if someone wants to only use the KJV then it is their person prerogative; but if they want to make the KJV something other than just another translation, "God's only word", God's one and only pure word, then they are trampling God's word and God Himself underfoot and are worshiping a man-made creation. THAT is worthy of fighting against.

 

I'm getting dizzy and losing focus on the mulberry bush. :laugh:

 

Thank the Lord for the 96% sameness.

Which BTW is about the degree of sameness between the AD1611 AV and the current Nelson version (even less when one retains the Apocrypha, which according to the Church of England was/is required by the Crown to be present in the AV).

Anyway I am in agreement with you in my own faith conviction concerning the "TR".

HankD

 

The Apocrypha was never accepted by the Church of England or the original translators as part of the Word of God. It was there for reference and reading only, and was soon dropped from even copies of the 1611 edition.

The Prayer Book makes it clear the Apocrypha was not a part of the Bible.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Yet they still call your cooking "inspired".

(When is dinner!)

Rob

 

You guys are ridiculous.

 

What prayer book? The Church of England is no more than the Episcopal church in America that still uses indulgences and is really more liberal now than the local Catholics. The Apocrypha was always used by the church of England.

Where in the 1611 Bible itself do you obtain any information that sets it apart. It appears between the Old and New Testaments just like another Testament with no special markings or warnings that it is there for history. I have to disagree with you on this one and the Oxford 1769 also contained the appocrypha. Not until the Bible was bootlegged in America did the Appocrypha get knocked out of the Bible as did all the foot-notes that allowed the reader to determine exactly which manuscripts that were used and how they decided to translate it. The translators themselves say there will be errors, they are simply making a better version of the Bishop's and other English Bibles. It was not simply a translation from the TR and an Old Testament document, it was actually a copy of the Bishop's with minor changes added. Look up the Bishop's and compare.

The church of England was no more than Catholic with the King as the pope. You know the story, the Catholic church would not allow Henry the eight from divorcing his wives, so he started his own church.

Another interesting tid-bit is that King James toured all over his two countries making political stump speeches to get people on his side; while at the same time carrying rats in their food that had fleas that carried the plague all over England and Wales at the time. If it hadn't been for his mighty group of soldiers (for protection) along with preachers and other types of people carrying their own food from city to city the plaque would probably have not caught on the way it did. This is based on simple European History.

Again, Authorized Version is a stamp placed by the printer to let the buyer know it was an approved printer who kicked back the king a large sum of of its profits in order to print it. Since England uses an infinite copyright, then they still claim rights to the KJV and its different translations. So, it is not wise to go to England or import Bibles into England in the KJV without an agreement with the government. In America, we just ignored the copyright, which was but one minor factor that irritated England when the United States wanted to break away from England. So when you hear of Authorized Version, don't get all mushy that it came from God as an Authorized Version, it is simply the same as Microsoft putting a validity stamp on their software so people would know it was legit Microsoft software. For a while, only two printers were allowed to print the KJV in England and they tried to kill those who would use the Geneva and who printed the KJV outside of the state.

This is the King that you worship when you say he was such a good Christian to come up with the idea of the KJV which became the KJVO. How many times does this have to be repeated; and I still haven't seen a legitimate answer of which copy was the original 100% accurate Bible in English before the King James came out? Obviously, there wasn't one for those generations, so did God say something he didn't stick with? Absolutely not. The KJV was also rejected for the same re66ason as the Modern Versions of today. It was a modern version then and was rejected by the public to the point that many were put to death to get rid of other translations such as the Geneva.

Talk about a monopoly. They didn't even have to contend with open market like MV's do today. The NIV made it all on its own without the demands from the president.

The background text for the New Testament is another story, and now you have the NKJV which uses the TR as its basis. It didn't even have to steal the last few verses from the Latin Vulgate. So, what was the 100% pure English Bible pre-1611. In fact, since the multitude of changes what was it prior to 1769? and why do you KJVO's keep quoting AV 1611 on your church emblems and stuff...it doesn't make sense.:BangHead:

 

I collect old Bibles and I have yet to see a 1611 version without the apocrypha. Would you like to see my extensive collection and the lack thereof of any reference that the Apocrypha was not scripture?

 

Under ....of the names and number of the canonical books: "lised by name" then:

"And the other books the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine;.........it then lists the Apocryphal books.....

The Book of Common Prayer, page 700,701

I do know that there are historical copies chained in the library of Westminister Cathedral, and the Apocryphal books are absent. I never checked the date, but read them in 1945.

Cheers,

Jim

PS. The above I was reading from my own Prayer Book dating back to about 1935.

 

What is wrong with 1 Tim. 6:10? Oh, it says all evil. Well, if you understood the bible definition of the word all then you wouldn't have a problem with that text. The problem isn't the translation, but rather the problem is with your misunderstanding of the bible. A "little study" might help.

 

What does the word all mean?

"All you blokes", doesn't mean all the blokes in the world, does it?

Cheers,

Jim

 

I believe He meant in the pages of the AV itself.

HankD

 

I am simply stating what I have purchased and what I have collected. Nowhere do these Bibles state anything concerning the Church of Englands Canonical beliefs. The Apocropha is simply found between the Old Testament and New Testament with no commentary to make a person think that it is not part of the Scriptures.

I was not saying what the Church of England believed, I was simply saying that I have yet to see a Bible printed in the 1700's that does not contain the Apocrypha and I have quite a few of these.

I would think that the Bible as it was printed would explain the canon if it were to reject the Apocrypha by the church of England? But, there is simply nothing in any of them that seperates the Apocrypha (besides the name itself) from the rest of Scripture.

 

What Bible used by the Episcopal Church (Anglican)

The Constitution and Canons lists authorized translations of the Bible in Title II, Canon 2: "The Lessons prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer shall be read from the translation of the Holy Scriptures commonly known as the King James or Authorized Version (which is the historic Bible of this Church) together with the Marginal Readings authorized for use by the General Convention of 1901; or from one of the three translations known as Revised Versions, including the English Revision of 1881, the American Revision of 1901, and the Revised Standard Version of 1952; from the Jerusalem Bible of 1966; from the New English Bible with the Apocrypha of 1970; or from the 1976 Good News Bible (Today's English Version); or from The New American Bible (1970); or from The Revised Standard Version, an Ecumenical Edition, commonly known as the "R.S.V. Common Bible" (1973); or from The New International Version (1978); or from The New Jerusalem Bible (1987); or from the Revised English Bible (1989); or from the New Revised Standard Version (1990); or from translations, authorized by the diocesan bishop, or those approved versions published in any other language; or from other versions of the Bible, including those in languages other than English, which shall be authorized by diocesan bishops for specific use in congregations or ministries within their dioceses."

From Amazon:

1979 Book of Common Prayer (RCL edition) and the New Revised Standard Version Bible with Apocrypha, genuine leather black, 9634AP by Episcopal Church (Leather Bound - Oct 17, 2007)

 

Phillip,

Thanks for your contribution, and I appreciate where you are coming from. Let me say this, however, I grew up Church of England. All my schooling was Church of England. When I came to Canada, I was in the Canadian military as an Anglican Chaplain. Never did we deem the Apocrapha as part of the Bible. This fact is clearly stated in the second most important book to the Bible, The Book of Common Prayer. Matter of fact, I haven't even read the Apocrypha.

Now I am partially blind and cannot read much until after my surgery next month, so some things I write are strictly on memory, and that's not good after my strokes,,,,,,,and age.

When I said the Apocrapha was removed from 1600's KJV, I believe now that was actually the Geneva Bible of 1635 that removed the Apocrypha. The KJ did remove the Apocrypha, but at a later date. The Westminister chained Bible has no Apocrypha in it.

Cheers,

Jim

 

It means all the blokes who hear someone say "all you blokes". I guess non-blokes could just ignore it.