The AV1611: Purified seven times

Bible Believers Website ^ | 2003 | Laurence Vance

[Con X-Poser]

<< Does the fact that God has preserved His word imply that a particular translation is perfect (absolutely no errors), or, simply inspired (subject to human interpretation fault)? What side of this issue do the KJVist's take? >>

What good would it do to preserve something with errors, or with the inability to distinguish errors from absolute truth?

God said He'd preserve His word (even if He used humans). If it contains errors, you are accusing God of the errors.

Strewn among thousands of mss. makes a mockery of the definition of the word preserved. Preserved implies we can access it and KNOW for CERTAIN what is thus saith the Lord.

Would you want God to preserve your soul in such a haphazard manner?

Read more at:

Bible Page:
http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/kjv.0
KJV Inspired?
http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/kjv__inspired_.0
Pure and Sure word:
http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/pure_and_sure_word_.0

King James Authorized Bible - The King of Books!

[editor-surveyor]

Most of the anti-KJV crowd will assure you that no translation is accurate.

That means that they believe that God has reneged on his promise. I believe that God guided the preparation of the KJV; any other position is a position of unbelief a one level or another. The 'modern' translations are part of an incremental attack on God's word, and their acceptance is evidential of the prophecied falling away.

Both cannot be right; if the modern translations are correct then there was a long period where the world was without God's word. Do you believe that?

[Commander8]

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver
tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou
shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve
them from this generation for ever. (Psalm 12:6-7)
I have enough faith in God the He kept his promise to preserve His word for all generations. Those who do not believe God kept his promise, have more faith in their churches, personal experience and human reasoning (what an oxymoron!) than they do in God. When they say there is no perfect Bible, they are calling God a liar.

[Commander8]

"As for the apostasy in the churches, do you know one major denomination that is not going apostate? (Rev.3)

The Church of England long ago gave up their King James Bibles for the modern versions, hence the rise in apostasy!"
AMEN! The apostacy of the C of E and its American, African, Canadian and Australian conterparts can be traced back to Hort and Westcott and their revision committee.

"So, when the anti-King James crowd starts ranting and raving about my posts, remember it is you that is coming on the threads with your violent reaction to the truth."
AMEN!!! The Bible bashers call us sweaty, bug-eyed fanatics yet THEY are the ones who cover their ears and say "Don't bother me with facts."

[Commander8]

"Sin-in-the-attic-cuss and Vat-and-can-it"

Very clever!!

[Commander8]

"God said He'd preserve His word (even if He used humans). If it contains errors, you are accusing God of the errors."
AMEN!!!

[RochesterFan]

Does the fact that God has preserved His word imply that a particular translation is perfect (absolutely no errors), or, simply inspired (subject to human interpretation fault)? What side of this issue do the KJVist's take?

If you read both sides of the argument, you will see two mechanisms proposed for the means God used to preserve His word. Both sides claim that the text has been preserved. The KJV-Only folks have claimed that the KJV is a perfect translation based upon the perfect manuscipts - the TR. Those of us who do not hold this position propose another mechanism: Using the early persecution and dispersion of the church, God distributed the copies of the autographs rapidly over a wide geographical area. No one group ever controlled all the copies. The second part of this argument is the vast number of copies, translations, and and quotations by early belivers. This provides what those of us in science call 'oversampling'. Using the terms of signal processing, oversampling increases the signal to noise ratio. When compared to all other documents of antiquity, the purity of the Scriptures is vastly superior to any other document. It isn't even close.

The KJV-Only school likes to charge the Alexandrians with the heresy of gnosticism and claim that it has corrupted the oldest complete manuscripts. This ignores the influence of Arian heresies in the West. Indeed, the Alexandrian bishop, Athanasius, led the charge against Arianism.

[Oztrich Boy]

the last English Bible that God "authorized."

despite his conceiving the Divine Right of Kings, James I(VI) was not God.

JAMES I
(1603-1625)
Rudyard Kipling

THE child of Mary Queen of Scots,
A shifty mother's shiftless son,
Bred up among intrigues and plots,
Learned in all things, wise in none.
Ungainly, babbling, wasteful, weak,
Shrewd, clever, cowardly, pedantic,
The sight of steel would blanch his cheek,
The smell of baccy drive him frantic.
He was the author of his line—
He wrote that witches should be burnt;
He wrote that monarchs were divine,
And left a son who—proved they weren't!

And he was also a miserable "gay". (not that there's anything wrong with that)

[drstevej]

***And he was also a miserable "gay". (not that there's anything wrong with that)***

Advice:
[asbestos suit on]

[editor-surveyor]

And he was also a miserable "gay"

That charge was completely refuted about 10 years ago in a book aptly entitled "King James Defended." I don't remember the author's name.

[Conservative til I die]

It got its name the Authorized 1611 due to the authority it obtained in all the Christian churches.

Except of course, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and since then, many other Protestant sects. But I guess by your logic, those groups are not Christians for not accepting the primacy of the KJV translation (as circular an argument as I've ever seen).

Funny, how NIV and NASB users do not seem to love their bibles like the King James believers do theirs?

There's a difference between loving our Bibles and fixating and obsessing, and in a way, worshipping our Bibles. And besides, it truly seems that you love "your" Bible, and not what's actually in it. Just the name of the KJV and it's style of prose, not what it says.

Most of us choose to love the words in the Bible, and even more importantly, the Trinitarian God behind it.

Maybe its because we know our is pure (Psa.119:140)

And ours isn't? You don't know how cultic you sound here, with your exclusive and elitist attitude.

As for the apostasy in the churches, do you know one major denomination that is not going apostate? (Rev.3)

All of the Protestant sects started apostate. Every apostate move since then is irrelevant.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches remain true, even if individuals or organized groups within these sects have gone apostate (which is nothing new anyway, since ever since two individuals in these groups have disagreed, usually one of them has gone apostate).

The Church of England long ago gave up their King James Bibles for the modern versions, hence the rise in apostasy! Logical fallacy. Just because event B happened after event A does not mean event A caused event B.

[Conservative til I die]

Until then, the King James is the final authority and the standard in which are others are to be evaluated.

You forgot to add "IMO" at the end of your post.

[Conservative til I die]

In a nutshell, the KJV cult members believe that a giant KJV dropped out of the sky, preceded by lightning bolts and stuff, and hence they worship it.

"Thou shalt have no Gods before the KJV"

[Conservative til I die]

Most of the anti-KJV crowd will assure you that no translation is accurate. That means that they believe that God has reneged on his promise.

You like to put words and thoughts in others' mouths and minds.

It's not an either-or proposition.

[Conservative til I die]

Shouldn't you be spamming right now?

[Conservative til I die]

OK wait...so if the KJV folks believe that God said he would never renege on his promise to preserve His word, then why did he wait well over a millennium to start preserving it via the KJV? This makes absolutely no sense.

[Con X-Poser]

The book "King James: Unjustly Accused" was written by Stephen Coston. Here is a synopsis of the stuff in the book, which proves that those who accuse King James of sodomy are spreading GOSSIP and LIES:

http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/king_james_queer_.0

[CARepubGal]

LOL! The KJV frenzy is an awful lot like Mormon fast and testimony meetings where the faithful stand in a hypoglycemic state and aver that they "Know that the Book of Mormon is true..." yadda yadda yadda.. The KJV only folks are about as lucid as the most fervent testimony heard in my former wards.

[fortheDeclaration]

Until then, the King James is the final authority and the standard in which are others are to be evaluated. You forgot to add "IMO" at the end of your post.

No, that is the opinion of those who make other versions.

The King James is the Bible all the other 'versions' compare themselves with and acknoweldge as it being the dominant English translation for almost 400 years.

[fortheDeclaration]

It got its name the Authorized 1611 due to the authority it obtained in all the Christian churches. Except of course, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and since then, many other Protestant sects. But I guess by your logic, those groups are not Christians for not accepting the primacy of the KJV translation (as circular an argument as I've ever seen).

First, we are speaking of a Protestant Reformation Bible.

Second, yes, if the Roman and Orthodox churches do not use the Received texts they are not using the correct texts.

Nothing 'circular' about it at all.

Funny, how NIV and NASB users do not seem to love their bibles like the King James believers do theirs? There's a difference between loving our Bibles and fixating and obsessing, and in a way, worshipping our Bibles. And besides, it truly seems that you love "your" Bible, and not what's actually in it. Just the name of the KJV and it's style of prose, not what it says.

No, I do not find any NIV 'only' people, or NASB 'only' people.

They just prefer that translation.

King James believers know that they are reading the very words of God, hence their love for the Book.

Most of us choose to love the words in the Bible, and even more importantly, the Trinitarian God behind it.

Well, good, then you need pure words, not corrupt ones like the ones from the corrupt Critical text of the Roman Catholic church, used in all the modern versions (except the NKJ which uses the correct NT text but not the correct Old Testament text)

Maybe its because we know our is pure (Psa.119:140) And ours isn't? You don't know how cultic you sound here, with your exclusive and elitist attitude.

No, it isn't.

I posted an article on the Greek text by the TBS, you should read and find out why the Received text is the pure text and the Critical text isn't.

As for the apostasy in the churches, do you know one major denomination that is not going apostate? (Rev.3) All of the Protestant sects started apostate. Every apostate move since then is irrelevant.

No, the Protestant churches returned to the Bible and got out of apostasy, the RCC.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches remain true, even if individuals or organized groups within these sects have gone apostate (which is nothing new anyway, since ever since two individuals in these groups have disagreed, usually one of them has gone apostate). The Church of England long ago gave up their King James Bibles for the modern versions, hence the rise in apostasy! Logical fallacy. Just because event B happened after event A does not mean event A caused event B.

No, it doesn't, but if we look for a common element on apostasy, the first sign of it is when the church gives up its Bible for alternative authorities like Popes, Councils, Priests,Creeds, Scholars etc.