https://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3557294/posts?q=1&;page=1
All Bibles that have been thrust upon us over the last couple hundred years have been based on corrupted texts . . . Vaticanus and Siniaticus. The source of these Bibles came from St. Catherine’s monastery where a count by the name of Tischendorff found pages and pages of Bible manuscripts in barrels – and took them.
The story behind these pages is that the monks were tediously and carefully preparing copies of the Bible. Whenever a scribe made an error – rather than attempt to correct the mistake – the page was placed in a barrel (they would not destroy them) and begin a brand new page. Every page that came to completion was error-free. In fact, they had a schematic for each page where every letter, punctuation mark, or space was in the same exact location on every single page.
What Tischendorf did, in essence, was to steal their trash and use it to produce Bibles . . . corrupt Bibles.
This is why the Textus Receptus, the source of the King James Bible, is the only one trusted and was the basis for God’s preserved Word for the English-speaking people.
The bottom line is, will Christians embrace the 1611 Authorized Version as their final authority or will they appeal to the dictates of human tradition?
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8
The next thread is up!
I like Dr. Grady.
What is the book, chapter and verse that affirms that "the King James Bible is the ONLY Bible that God is blessing for the English Speaking people."
Oh that's right. There isn't any.
If it was good enough for Jesus...
I have never met street preachers or open air evangelists with anything but a KJB in their hands. Maybe someone else has.
For many years as missionaries in Asia, the strongest, boldest Gospel-preaching missionaries we ever came across, when dealing in English, were using the KJB. The most worldly and weakest in their fidelity to the terms of the Gospel of the grace of God used versions produced since 1950, especially.
On social media and even here on FR, spiritual and other positions are never stated so strongly as they are when under-girded by the words of the KJB Text. When people quote a modern version to support a worthwhile argument, we often wonder, “Why did they use that mamby-pamby, milk toast version when they could have used the superior strength of the KJB.
and
The bottom line is, will Christians embrace the 1611 Authorized Version as their final authority or will they appeal to the dictates of human tradition?
So is it "completely a matter of faith" that Christians who do not subscribe to the King James only nonsense are following human tradition, or are you trying to sneak in supposed facts under the guise of "faith"?
I thought KJV only was a myth.
Interesting.
>>This is why the Textus Receptus, the source of the King James Bible, is the only one trusted and was the basis for God’s preserved Word for the English-speaking people.
POPPYCOCK!
2. There is a major religion that claims the most important part of the Word of God was not available until 1827 and not published until 1830. The claim is that when God said he would preserve His Word on the Earth, He meant that for a significant stretch of time He would preserve it in the Earth. I find this claim as ludicrous as the idea that, after John put down his pen on Patmos, it took until 1611 for it to be available in it's true form.
3. What is the Word of God in Urdu? or Dutch?
4b. In your Bible, does John 3:16 read "For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."? If not, you are not using the KJV of 1611, but the "Authorized Version", authorized by the Church of England (Episcopalian), and most recently updated IIRC in the 1850s.
4b. What does II Maccabees 2:4 say? If you can't look it up in your Bible, it isn't the KJV of 1611.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/
Textus Receptus Greek New Testament On Line
Luke 2:41
kai eporeuonto oi goneis autou kat etos eis ierousalhm tE eorth tou pasca
AND WENT THE parents OF-Him according-to YEAR INTO JERUSALEM to-THE FESTIVAL OF-THE PASSOVER
Either the Textus Receptus here is denying the Divinity of Christ, or parsing the word "parents" in such a manner is an injustice. You will pardon me, I hope, if I hew to the latter position.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/luk2.pdf
Why must I have faith that if God is able to preserve his Word, he must have done so in the KJV? Faith means taking someone at his word, and yet we have no word from God that this is so. Which means your faith in KJV-onlyism is a blind one.
Anyone who wishes to know why it is my "only" bible can read it, or perhaps read the Epistle Dedcatory, which sets out its provenance in detail.
Howerver, there are rare times, usually times of confusion or inward struggle, when I turn to my second Bible: the Greek Textus receptus, which has also been my companion for over 50 years. (Since 1964, according to the date I wrote on the flyleaf).
And finally, on the almost vanishingly rare occasions when I am troubled by a text in the OT, I turn to the one other version I trust - the Septuagint - whose accuracy has been vindicated by the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Peshitta, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.