Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Why King James Only?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

i have a copy if the 1611 KJV bible in it has the book of apocrypha which was around 274 yrs. then they removed it in 1885.  i do use the 1885 KJV the more you read it the more it comes to life and you know it better. 

Edited by allen32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

it was included in the 1611 kvj and here are the books. 1 esdras, 2esdras, tOBit , judith , addition to esther , wisdom of solomon , ecclesiasticus , baruch , letter of jeremian , prayer of azariah,susanna , bel and the dragon , prayer or manasseh , 1 maccabees and 2 maccabees they were taking out if the KJV in 1885 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Let me apologize for unintentionally mis-directing this post with my statement on Peter Ruckman. It wasn't really meant as an all-out attack or repudiation on his work-I have read many good things by him. I was merely trying to state in what way I am KJV only.

 

We've had a lot ab0out Riplinger and Ruckman on the subject: there are many other very good writers on the subject. Maybe we should investigate some of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I completely understood Riplinger's point in Hazardous Materials, basically she says your stupid for using Greek and Hebrew because Satan is corrupting the bible through corrupt lexicons, all based on quotes that you can't even trust.

Walk into your Church bookstore, pick up the college textbook on exegesis, read the intro where the editor thanks Zondervan for the use of the NIV on CD to aid in his study.

Then get back to me on "corrupt".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Walk into your Church bookstore, pick up the college textbook on exegesis, read the intro where the editor thanks Zondervan for the use of the NIV on CD to aid in his study.

Then get back to me on "corrupt".

not sure what exactly you are getting at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

not sure what exactly you are getting at?

Not rocket science. The tools you're being taught to study Greek with are corrupt.
Tomorrow, if you haven't already purchased it, go into the church bookstore and pick up the college textbook on exegesis, go to nearly the end of the intro, and read that the editor used the NIV on cd, to enlighten the exegesis of the Greek of the TR (which no one actually owns a copy of anyways).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The original 1611 did include the Apocrypha, but it with a note that it was recommended reading rather than scripture.

​Just out of curiosity and not trying to 'fight', but where is this 'note'. I have an exact facsimile and a 'reprint' of the original 1611 and it says that no where.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Esdras_1_1611/

You must be thinking about the Geneva Bible, where it has the 'argument' at the beginning of the Apocrypha, stating such.

https://archive.org/stream/TheGenevaBible1560/geneva_bible1560#page/n773/mode/2up

geneva_bible1560_0774.jp2&scale=2&rotate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This short bit is inconclusive, and the best I've found so far trying to find more about the KJB and apocrypha, so if anyone has any more specific information on the matter I would appreciate it being posted here.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Just out of info that I am aware of, the 1599 and various editions of the Geneva bible before the KJB,  had the Apocrypha removed from them by various people after they were printed, so that it is pretty much a 50/50 chance of a Geneva having the Apocrypha in them. I have seen multiple editions of the KJB down through the years, and most, dating from 1611 through the early 1700's, all had the apocryphal books in them, with verse references to them mixed in with all the other verse references that are normal. As for the text itself, the 1611 King James Apocrypha is quite different from the Geneva Apocrypha, and most of the objections people give for them being 'riddled with errors' is not evident in the Geneva Bible Apocrypha. In fact many verses that are in the Geneva Apocrypha don't exist in the King James Bible Apocrypha, nor in most Apocrypha sections of the pre-1611 bibles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By BibleBeliever5
      Hi, I would love to hear the community’s feedback about using an update to the King James Version.  I love the KJV.  But the language is basically 400 year-old English.  So if there were a simple and accurate update to the KJV that made no changes except updating the old language, would you want to use it?  What would be your thoughts generally about such an update?  Would you like it as a stand alone version, or as a parallel Bible with the current KJV?  It would be great to hear what you all think.  May God be glorified.
       
      In Christ,
      Joseph
    • By Alan
      Brethren,
      One of the main reasons why I joined OnLineBaptist was its adherence to the  King James Version of the Bible as the only version in the English language to be used as a scripture reference.
      Most of the folks here on OnLineBaptist know my stand for the KJV and my revulsion (yes, you read that correctly: revulsion), for any of the new versions (including the NKJV).
      After a thorough study of the issue (privately and up to a PhD in education), of the different versions of the Bible, I have long ago came to the conclusion that since the Revised Version (RV), of 1881 until the New King James Version (NKJV), all of these versions are corrupt in manuscript evidence, scholarship, integrity, and honestly.
      The current trend of folks using the newer versions on OnLineBaptist without the common courtesy to even mention which version they used, in my eyes, is deceitful. When a person signs on onto OnLineBaptist they know the rules concerning quoting from any version other than the KJV. So, in my eyes, the non-mentioning of which version they used is deliberate.
      Furthermore, intellectual honesty, a prerequisite for any serious Bible discussion, demands that the user of another person's material that is copyrighted to make known the material that they use. In the case of Bible versions, the abbreviated letters are enough; NIV, RV, RSV, NKJV, etc... This practice is well known, so, the usage of a non-KJV scripture passage, and not mentioning the version, in my eyes, is intellectually dis-honest. 
      Forgive me for being so blunt. To me this is a cardinal issue of extreme importance.
      Lastly, when an author makes a mistake, he should go back and correct that mistake. In the current case in point, the individuals who used a non-King James Version, needs to go back to every time they used the non-King James Version and either delete the reference, strike out the offending passage, or delete the entire passage.
      Regards,
      Alan
    • By Roselove
      I was wondering, does anyone know of a Bible translation, that is as accurate as the KJV, but has more modern writing? 
       
    • By fastjav390
      If you have Amazon Prime there's a few free videos about the King James bible that are worth the watch. One is entitled, "A Lamp in a Dark Place" and another is its sequel entitled, "Tares Among the Wheat". Both are pretty good. There's also one entitle, "KJV-The Making of the King James Bible". Finally, there's one entitled, "KJV- The Book that Changed the World" but that one you have to rent. The latter focuses a lot on King James himself, the translators and the socio-political environment of the time. Check them out if you can.
    • By birdlover99
      So I need help selecting the perfect bible. I've been looking but haven't found my one yet. I want it to be sturdy, large, normal sized print. Not the really tiny print. Words of god in red. I would really like to have the reference topics in the back but I would be ok if someone knew of a bible topics book separate I'd really appreaciate it, please when you reply send link too. 
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...