Word differences: 1611 vs. newer KJVs

Will Kinney:Pastor Reagan rightly says: "We need to establish one thing from the out-set. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man."

Then why doesn't Reagan practice what he preaches? Why does he tell only half-truths? He cannot prove God is limited to only the KJV in English any more than you can.

My belief is that God has kept His promises to preserve His inerrant words, and He has already providentially guided certain chosen men through this same "scholarly process" to select both the correct texts and the correct meaning for those texts. Afterall, only God really knows which readings are His and which are not.

Then why does the KJVO try to tell us which are God's readings and which are not? He/she has NO Scriptural support for any such "scholarship". Indeed, the KJVO does what he/she accuses non-Onlyists of doing-PICKING AND CHOOSING. But then this exhibition of yet another double standard by the KJVOs doesn't surprise me.

The KJB believer first looks to God and His promises to preserve His words, and believes that God has done what He said He would do.

Same as we KJV believers who aren't limited by the false doctrine, originated by a 7th day Adventist, to JUST the KJV.

The "No Bible is Inspired" group, or the biblical relativist, seems to think that he and his buddies are capable "restoring" what God never lost, and denies that God has already preserved His words in the King James Bible, or any other bible.

Actually, your view here is quite wrong. We believe that GOD IS NOT LIMITED, and that He can-and DOES-provide His word for us AS HE CHOOSES. It's the ONLYIST who says, "God couldn't POSSIBLY have done it this way", while the BIBLE says, "With God, all things are possible."

This is the fundamental difference in our approach to the doctines of inspiration and preservation. We KJB believers are convinced God has done what He said He would do.

So are we who believe the KJV as well as other versions. The REAL fundamental difference is that the Onlyist rejects all other valid versions of God's word because of their belief in a totally-false doctrine made by men, lacking even the most basic Scriptural support. The Onlyist has no foundation for his/her doctrine.


The Bible of the Month Club member thinks it is still an ongoing process and his results are getting more scattered and divergent as time goes by.

If the process weren't ongoing, we'd have no English Bible translations at all. After all, English didn't exist when God finished presenting His words to mankind, so it HAD to be ongoing for these words to be translated into the English of the day. The Onlyist seeks to prevent God from doing what He's been doung for 2000 years.


The Nestle-Aland, UBS Greek texts, upon which most modern versions are based, continue to change every few years, and the modern versions have introduced hundreds of variations into the Old Testament Scriptures. They often reject the Hebrew readings in favor of the alleged pre-Christian Septuagint, Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch, or Vulgate texts. Just look at the differences between the KJB, NASB, and the ESV in this regard.

But all we have is guesswork and opinion to tell us which is correct or which is wrong. The evidence is heavily against the Onlyist's guesswork.

The King James Bible believer is convinced he has the inerrant words of God and enjoys maximum certainty and rest in the fulfilled promises of Almighty God. = "Thus saith the LORD".

And so are WE-without the baggage of trying to LIMIT GOD.

 

Then you're a hypocrite to say the AV 1611 KJB is not good enough for you </font>[/QUOTE]Again you've demonstrated your reasoning to be unreasonable. Precepts, you should stop putting the cart before the horse. The KJV;kjb came from the Originals....so, pay very close attention: In the year 2004 we too can have Bible Versions based on the same thing, the Originals. Was that clear enough this time? </font>[/QUOTE]You're pushing a new cart that doesn't say the same as the Originals, that is proven w/o actually having them. It's called harmony of the Scriptures, something mv's don't have. In 2004 we still have the Word of God preserved in the AV 1611 KJB, along with many other "versions" that try to equate themselves with it, futily.

 

The Doctrine of Divine Preservation: God is able to preserve His Word and has done so in the AV 1611 KJB.

The doctrine of anti-preservation: The rejection of scriptures and their meaning by mv advoctaes which prove the KJB to be God's preservation of His Word.

We have God's Word on the preservation of His Bible, then we have the mv advoctaes word which goes against that preservation by their indoctrination of anti-preservation.

 

Cranston: "Same as we KJV believers who aren't limited by the false doctrine, originated by a 7th day Adventist, to JUST the KJV. "

I didn't know there were 7th day disadvantaged in 1611? You'd blame the cult of "law abiding" for the Doctrine of Divine Preservation? That is laughable.

Again, I believed the AV 1611 KJB to be God's Holy Bible and everything else is foreign to me. The Spirit bears witness with my spirit I have God's Word, but I haven't found that anywhere except in the KJB, and that w/o ever hearing anything otherwise. Your accusations are false dictomy.

You still promote anti-preservation as a doctrine and are unable on your own to come to the knowledge of the Truth of God's Preservation of His Word.

 

Then you're a hypocrite to say the AV 1611 KJB is not good enough for you </font>[/QUOTE]Again you've demonstrated your reasoning to be unreasonable. Precepts, you should stop putting the cart before the horse. The KJV;kjb came from the Originals....so, pay very close attention: In the year 2004 we too can have Bible Versions based on the same thing, the Originals. Was that clear enough this time? </font>[/QUOTE]You're pushing a new cart that doesn't say the same as the Originals, that is proven w/o actually having them. It's called harmony of the Scriptures, something mv's don't have. In 2004 we still have the Word of God preserved in the AV 1611 KJB, along with many other "versions" that try to equate themselves with it, futily. </font>[/QUOTE]I thought you couldn't read the Originals, so how do you know the MV's don't line up? In 2004 we have God's Word preserved in all reliable versions, not pickled in one version that is like a rusty sword to the modern reader, and stale bread to the modern reader. Stick with your model "T", since it stills runs, but since it's 2004, (i.e. the fluidic nature of our English lang) I'll drive my "corvette" aka Good Reliable MV's

 

Pastor Regan,

Thank you for proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the KJO story is a fairy tail.

"We need to establish one thing from the out-set. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors , but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man."

The translators of the King James translation of the Bible were human, just like the publishers, editors, and type setters of the 1611 editions of the KJV. And just as you wrote, “humans will still make plenty of errors.”