Thoughts about using a KJV update?

[Davy]

You start by discussing this forum, then end with "NOT EVEN WRITTEN TO YOU!" in all caps. I will indeed step back, and pay no attention to your vicious remarks.

Me vicious? It's hard for me to be vicious to the mentally handicapped who cannot control the words coming out of their mouth.

 

[Davy]

Lol

So since these newer texts are damaging to the word. We totally ignore the errors in the said text we love

Thats faulty reasoning my friend.

And yet another attempt to ESCAPE... the issue of modern scholars TRYING to ATTACK the Textus Recptus and KJV Bible.

 

[Davy]

Lol

So since these newer texts are damaging to the word. We totally ignore the errors in the said text we love

Thats faulty reasoning my friend.

And furthermore... I am well familiar with shortcomings in the 1611 KJV translation. I NEVER said it was a perfect translation, but still the BEST ENGLISH TRANSLATION to date. Even the KJV translators themselves in their Letter To The Reader included in the 1st edition KJV Bible revealed some of its shortcomings. So you need to get your facts straight before you go MOUTHING things you do not know about.

 

[BarneyFife]

There is a HUGE difference between Agape and Phileo love.

There is, but there shouldn't be. In Christ's heart they are one and the same.

In man:

Matthew 5:46 KJV: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?​

 

[BarneyFife]

Me vicious? It's hard for me to be vicious to the mentally handicapped who cannot control the words coming out of their mouth.

He'll flip the -ignore- switch on you in a hurry, that's for sure.

I can say whatever I want to him and he can't even see it. - lol

 

[Michiah-Imla]

I can say whatever I want to him and he can't even see it. - lol

LOL!!!

Yeah, using the “ignore” feature only limits the person using the feature!

You can challenge everything they say without being “proved wrong” in the appearance of readers.

 

[Jim B]

Lol

So since these newer texts are damaging to the word. We totally ignore the errors in the said text we love

Thats faulty reasoning my friend.

LOL

 

[Pearl]

Most events of history are pointless to those who keep repeating it.

I just do not know what you are getting at. Why bring historical events into the mix? i was telling you it was pointless talking to me about door-to-door salesmen in the context of preferred bible translation. None of us should be putting down another Christian because of their choice of bible, but so many - mostly men - get so hot under the collar about it that they become heavy handed and sometime even downright rude on the subject. I even got banned from one site by the owner because I preferred a different bible to the KJV.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

And furthermore... I am well familiar with shortcomings in the 1611 KJV translation. I NEVER said it was a perfect translation, but still the BEST ENGLISH TRANSLATION to date. Even the KJV translators themselves in their Letter To The Reader included in the 1st edition KJV Bible revealed some of its shortcomings. So you need to get your facts straight before you go MOUTHING things you do not know about.

Your still wrong. It is not the best to date. It is outdated and used archaic language. I would not give it to a new believer who would be confused trying to read it

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I just do not know what you are getting at. Why bring historical events into the mix? i was telling you it was pointless talking to me about door-to-door salesmen in the context of preferred bible translation. None of us should be putting down another Christian because of their choice of bible, but so many - mostly men - get so hot under the collar about it that they become heavy handed and sometime even downright rude on the subject. I even got banned from one site by the owner because I preferred a different bible to the KJV.

They are a unique bunch

 

[Davy]

I just do not know what you are getting at. Why bring historical events into the mix? i was telling you it was pointless talking to me about door-to-door salesmen in the context of preferred bible translation. None of us should be putting down another Christian because of their choice of bible, but so many - mostly men - get so hot under the collar about it that they become heavy handed and sometime even downright rude on the subject. I even got banned from one site by the owner because I preferred a different bible to the KJV.

Not pointless, I can't think of any more honest label than 'door-to-door salesmen' (or carpetbaggers) for Wescott and Hort's actions with pushing their new revised Greek text based on the Vaticanus and Alexandrinus manuscripts to the committee of 1881.

So do you still claim ignorance of why I applied those terms to them, even after I've explained them?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

There is, but there shouldn't be. In Christ's heart they are one and the same.

In man:

Matthew 5:46 KJV: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?​

If you agape those who only agape you….

Not quite sure of your point

 

[Davy]

Your still wrong. It is not the best to date. It is outdated and used archaic language. I would not give it to a new believer who would be confused trying to read it

The 1611 King James Bible is still the BEST ENGLISH BIBLE TO DATE, hands down, because it is still the MOST ACCURATE English translation to date, even with the shortcomings it has which the KJV translators warned the reader about. Saying it is "outdated and used archaic language" is OPINION ONLY, and most often comes from the SIDE THAT WANTS TO REPLACE IT WITH Wescott and Hort's corrupt new Greek text translation.

 

[Davy]

None of us should be putting down another Christian because of their choice of bible, but so many - mostly men - get so hot under the collar about it that they become heavy handed and sometime even downright rude on the subject. I even got banned from one site by the owner because I preferred a different bible to the KJV.

Do you hear what that person is saying??? How deluded can one be?

By MY pointing out the CORRUPTIONS of the MODERN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS, particularly the New Testament translations from Wescott and Hort's new Greek text they manufactured from two manuscripts they CLAIMED were better and older than the Greek texts the KJV translators used, Pearl WRONGLY THINKS I am ATTACKING Christian brethren for their choice of Bible they use!!!! What kind of delusion is that!!!

I could care less which Bible version one chooses to use!

But I DO CARE ABOUT CHARLATANS that try to push a CORRUPT Bible version, and attempt to EXALT it over the 1611 KJV because being based on the "beast and oldest" manuscripts, which HAS NEVER BEEN HISTORICALLY PROVEN!

I mean, how big of an anvil does it take to fall upon one's head for them to start to realize that Wescott and Hort and the TWO Greek manuscripts they relied upon represented A TWO MAN MOVEMENT against the Majority Text, i.e., the majority of existing Greek manuscripts, in the thousands, which the 1611 KJV translators used?!?

 

[Pearl]

Not pointless, I can't think of any more honest label than 'door-to-door salesmen' (or carpetbaggers) for Wescott and Hort's actions with pushing their new revised Greek text based on the Vaticanus and Alexandrinus manuscripts to the committee of 1881.

So do you still claim ignorance of why I applied those terms to them, even after I've explained them?

It may not be pointless to you but as I haven't got a clue as to what you are referring . . .
And you may think you have explained but not in any way that I can understand what 'door-to-door salesmen' or 'carpetbaggers' have to do with my preference of bible.

 

[Pearl]

Do you hear what that person is saying??? How deluded can one be?

By MY pointing out the CORRUPTIONS of the MODERN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS, particularly the New Testament translations from Wescott and Hort's new Greek text they manufactured from two manuscripts they CLAIMED were better and older than the Greek texts the KJV translators used, Pearl WRONGLY THINKS I am ATTACKING Christian brethren for their choice of Bible they use!!!! What kind of delusion is that!!!

I could care less which Bible version one chooses to use!

But I DO CARE ABOUT CHARLATANS that try to push a CORRUPT Bible version, and attempt to EXALT it over the 1611 KJV because being based on the "beast and oldest" manuscripts, which HAS NEVER BEEN HISTORICALLY PROVEN!

I mean, how big of an anvil does it take to fall upon one's head for them to start to realize that Wescott and Hort and the TWO Greek manuscripts they relied upon represented A TWO MAN MOVEMENT against the Majority Text, i.e., the majority of existing Greek manuscripts, in the thousands, which the 1611 KJV translators used?!?

Oh dear, listen to yourself, you really are wound up aren't you.

 

[Davy]

It may not be pointless to you but as I haven't got a clue as to what you are referring . . .
And you may think you have explained but not in any way that I can understand what 'door-to-door salesmen' or 'carpetbaggers' have to do with my preference of bible.

Not about YOUR Bible preference. That is a STORY YOU ARE MAKING UP, and you know it too! And doing that is what the sin of bearing false witness is about. You very well know how I applied those terms.

 

[Jim B]

Are those who vigorously defend the out-of-date King James Version of the Bible the Pharisees of the present time? In my opinion they clearly are!

(Please read my "signature" below)

 

[Davy]

Oh dear, listen to yourself, you really are wound up aren't you.

Of course it would sound like it to one who wouldn't be very serious about God's Holy Writ.

 

[Pearl]

Not about YOUR Bible preference. That is a STORY YOU ARE MAKING UP, and you know it too! And doing that is what the sin of bearing false witness is about. You very well know how I applied those terms.

I have not been 'bearing false witness. I thought this discussion was about bible preferences. I seem to have misunderstood your previous posts. You perhaps need to be clearer, and not call people liars.