Textual/version stance

[Bakershalfdozen]

KJB_P - Suppose someone in 1603 said the same things about the Geneva Bible that you just said .....

For any translation, words are changed, added (for clarification), translated, etc. I promise you the version that was published in 1611 didn't fall out of the sky. Eve is an example of adding to God's words. Translating is not adding to God's Word.

[Guest Guest]

Would you say the KJV is perfect? If so, how can perfection be improved on?

Remember we believe the TR is perfect too. It isn't an issue of "improvement" it is a clarity issue. I can have the word of God in my hand but if I can't read it it doesn't do me a lot of good. Remember this is purely a hypothetical issue, IF english were to change a lot more in the next several hundred years. We are not saying that the KJV needs to be replaced, we are merely saying that IF another faithful translation came out at some point we would not have an issue with it IF it was faithful as well.

[John81]

Anyone can do it. Just like we can compare the MVs to the KJV and to the underlying manuscripts - we can also compare any new supposedly TR-based translation or update of the KJV. So far any claims by others have been bad jobs.



I would say the people of God that have been using it. As has been shown in numerous threads (if you have been paying any attention), the flaws and contradictions of the MVs have been clearly shown - YET NOONE HAS EVER PROVEN ONE contradiction or irreconcilable passage IN THE KJV. So, yes, I would say that the KJV is very accurate.

Jerry,

Is it true that some or all of the exact texts those who put forth the KJB used are no longer available?

I read this somewhere and I can't remember where I read it. I also can't remember if they said some of the actual text used is no longer available or if they said all of the text they used is no longer available.

[Guest Guest]

Hi...Bakershalfdozen. If this is "truly" a KJV site, then, I can certainly understand where most of the confusion comes from? This site should take a FIRM stand on the KJV, not a "wishy-washy" stand. Here lies the majority of the confusion in itself. :smile Thank the Lord...some people do take a FIRM stand. Why does this site NOT do that when it claims to be KJV? One is either for or against the KJV. Does God want His children to be lukewarm? The answer is a definite, NO. Either, one is HOT or COLD...no middle ground is part of God's vocabulary on His Holy Word. Letters to the Churches Revelation 3: 14-16...And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the A-men, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot, I will spue (vomit) thee out of my mouth. KJV 1611 AV.

candlelight

[Guest Guest]

Hi seth. With all due respect, how can that be? I researched the TR today. And, yes, it is Latin. I could tell by the words. hehe. This is corruption from the Vatican seeping directly into IFB churches. Pope Benedict wants the RCC people to learn Latin, now? Did you know that? Of course...confusion (Satan's tool) is being used now more than ever amongst Bible Believers...as well. Notice that I said "Bible Belivers" and NOT "Fundamentalists"? There is a HUGE difference in the termonolgy.

candelight

[Bakershalfdozen]

candlelight, No one said this wasn't a KJV site and all the Admins/mods use the KJV. Are you implying that we (I) don't? There is just so much circular reasoning that goes on to "prove" that the KJV is the ONLY Bible that God approves of. If I was a Japanese person, I guarantee you I wouldn't be KJVO because I would have a Bible translated into Japanese. :Green

[Jerry]

The phrase "Textus Receptus" is Latin - the manuscripts however are Greek.

[Bakershalfdozen]

You researched the TR today......???

Tell me, what did the Anglican translators in 1611 read from when they were so busily translating back in 1611 and prior? It wasn't the KJV - it wasn't in existence yet. :smile They had a family of Greek texts (TR, if you will) and a family of Hebrew texts (Masoretic) and they looked at a passage and carefully rendered the words and the meanings into English. Bible colleges still use Greek and Hebrew texts today to learn from.

[Guest Guest]

candlelight' date=' No one said this wasn't a KJV site and all the Admins/mods use the KJV. Are you implying that we (I) don't? There is just so much circular reasoning that goes on to "prove" that the KJV is the ONLY Bible that God approves of. If I was a Japanese person, I guarantee you I wouldn't be KJVO because I would have a Bible translated into Japanese. :Green[/quote']

Right here in OH alone we have an IFB church called First Baptist Church, of Milford, OH. BEARING PRECIOUS SEED is the ministry that translates the KJV 1611 AV into various non-English speaking languages. I know for sure that they have printed the KJV 1611 AV in Arabic. They work diligently (day and night) printing the KJV 1611 AV into non-English speaking languages so that our IFB Missionaries can take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the "uttermost" parts of the earth. I have a friend who is 1/2 Japanese American. Her name is Sachiko. Her sister's name is Tomiko. She has 2 brothers with Japanese names as well. Her dad came to the USA from Japan when he was 15. As we speak...KJV 1611 AV Bibles are being have been translated for the Japanese people. They are being massed produced. Everything we have at our fingertips is in their hands as well. Dictionaries, Concordances, etc...If I spoke Japenese I most certainlyI would NOT want to be robbed from God's precious Word. And, that my friend...is ONLY the KJV 1611 AV. Why should they get "sloppy seconds" when we have a "full course meal" so to speak? This is my point! Actually, it is the "pure" Word of the Lord Jesus Christ.

candlelight

[Guest Guest]

The phrase "Textus Receptus" is Latin - the manuscripts however are Greek.

Hi Jerry. Not according to the Internet sites that I looked at. :thumb I was in the RCC for years, I know the Latin language (thank the Lord I have forgotten it). The TR is a fraud. A tool merely used by Satan.

candlelight

[Guest Guest]

You researched the TR today......???

Tell me, what did the Anglican translators in 1611 read from when they were so busily translating back in 1611 and prior? It wasn't the KJV - it wasn't in existence yet. :smile They had a family of Greek texts (TR, if you will) and a family of Hebrew texts (Masoretic) and they looked at a passage and carefully rendered the words and the meanings into English. Bible colleges still use Greek and Hebrew texts today to learn from.

The KJV 1611 AV was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The author is the Lord Jesus Christ, himself. You are obviously not getting this at all. And, so the confusion still exists. :pray

candlelight

[Bakershalfdozen]

If you translate the KJV into another language, the new result is not a KJV. A King James Version of the Bible is written in English. And the new translation certainly isn't the 1611 edition. It is a new translation. Totally different language. Has its own name.

[kevinmiller]

Hi Jerry. Not according to the Internet sites that I looked at. :thumb I was in the RCC for years, I know the Latin language (thank the Lord I have forgotten it). The TR is a fraud. A tool merely used by Satan.

candlelight

I found an internet site that says aliens are invading next year, better get to Wal-Mart and buy some squirt guns.

This kind of absurdity is what makes fundamentalists look wacky to other Christians. The TR is a fraud? Well then, Candlelight, your KJV is also a fraud.

[Guest Guest]

I found an internet site that says aliens are invading next year, better get to Wal-Mart and buy some squirt guns.

This kind of absurdity is what makes fundamentalists look wacky to other Christians. The TR is a fraud? Well then, Candlelight, your KJV is also a fraud.

Hey, let's all give her a break... she didn't know what the term "TR" even meant until she read this topic. She's new to OB, and probably hasn't been in a discussion exactly like this before.

If we want to get into a discussion about the twisted stuff IFBs believe just because some guy wrote an article on the internet, we should get another thread started. I'm sure THAT would be fun! *cough*cloud*cough*

[John81]

Hey, let's all give her a break... she didn't know what the term "TR" even meant until she read this topic. She's new to OB, and probably hasn't been in a discussion exactly like this before.

If we want to get into a discussion about the twisted stuff IFBs believe just because some guy wrote an article on the internet, we should get another thread started. I'm sure THAT would be fun! *cough*cloud*cough*

Yes, be kind.

As to the rest...well, I just had to :lol: