[tonybones2112]

http://www.mindspring.com/~brucec/kjv.htm

One thing I am impressed with is the bitter hatred these clowns have for those who view the doctrines of Christ from the fundamental perspective and also hold to One Standard for the language we read and speak. The shrieking maniac who runs this site freely admits he got his vitriol and false information from 5 or 6 anti- KJV websites located at the bottom of this webpage, proving most of the heretics we deal with on the KJV issue are parrots. I'm going to look for a picture of a parrot for my message pictures when I post on FFF.

When I speak to an Original Manuscript Fraud as acerbic as what runs this website I am afraid I fall into a stereotype they put on us: I doubt the person's salvation. You are saved because GOD gave you the doctrines of salvation from HIS WORD, which is GIVEN BY INSPIRATION, and when you claim you nor me nor anybody else HAS the Scriptures given by inspiration, it makes me wonder if they are saved; if any of them truly are it has to be in spite of themselves.

By the way, this site is primarily to defend "Christian rock". Sure. So where is my "Christian" hybrid car and my "Christian" cornflakes? If you go to the FFF forum there are plenty of sleazy pop up ads for "Sexy Christian Singles!"

I'm gonna go have a cup of new EZEKIEL Coffee and light up a Pontius Pilate Filter King.

Grace and peace friends.

Tony

[Luke]

King James was a fag? Haven't heard that one before..

I don't know why that would influence him, since most of his Christian rock stars are homo sympathizers..

[Luke]

Oh wow, that page is actually laughably misinformed. He even claims the AV1611 is full of thousands upon thousands of spelling mistakes.

[bibleprotector]

They parrot the old foolish questions like:

Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised many times. According to Dial the Truth, it is the 1611 version (look at their web address). Yet you cannot buy a 1611 KJV Bible today. That means your King James translation is IN ERROR - according to them.

Fact one: the KJB is the inspired Word of God, because the uninspired men from 1604-1611 were working with the gathered words of God.

Fact two: the version of 1611 is the same as today, the underlying texts have not been altered.

Fact three: of course people can buy a 1611 Bible today, meaning, the same version in a current edition, facsimiles or reprints of the 1611 edition, and antique editions printed in 1611.

Fact four: these facts mean that KJBOs are not in error, but instead, the accuser is mistaken.

Before 1611 there was no "inspired" Bible. What Bible do the KJV people say was the correct one prior to 1611?

Of course the Scripture was given by inspiration by the original penmen, and of course there were canonical Scriptures used throughout all ages, so there must be lots of copies of Scripture from before 1611.

Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV?

Do anti-KJBO people realise that such a foolish slur does nothing against any normal KJBO believer.

Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?

Because the KJBO upholds the Scripture, not necessarily all the contents of the KJB productions. After all, there are KJBs which has Seventh Day Adventist material in the back, Mormon notes in them, or Freemason covers. Does this make the actual Scripture of none effect? I trow not.

Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities?

They are not alternate, but were possibilities which were rejected by them, and given so that we may see what they rejected, and may agree that the text is correct.

If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!

Exactly.

If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why didn't they know it?

They weren't, so of course they knew they weren't.

Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."? Weren't these also inspired?

They are not entirely removed at all, as all these things are still printed, and some things, such as the dedication and margin notes, are still very common. But they are not Scripture, nor inspired.

When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why is the Greek wrong and the KJV English correct? Shouldn't we all learn Greek?

Since there are various editions of the Greek, and the English is a gathering from many sources (primarily the Greek), we trust the KJB has the correct text. And no, we should not have to learn Greek to know or trust God's Word, since that idea contradicts Romans 16:26, etc., and is a mystery doctrine.

Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV?

That is a side issue. Numerous modern versions are not copyright, and God's Word is not bound.

Isn't it ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)

There are many editions of the TR, all of which disagree with each other. The final standard is the KJB, which gathers correctly from various sources.

Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?

This is untrue. While Erasmus' first edition might have been based on a few representative MS copies, certainly near 100 years of Greek scholarship confirmed a general TR representation before the KJB was made. Also, the KJB takes into account many witnesses. It is important to see that late reliable copies are better than old corrupt ones.

If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absent from the TR, yet present in the KJV?

The TR is not "the error free text" since there is no single TR standard that the KJB was based upon in the Greek, but a general consensus. Also, the end of Revelation is not absent, even if it were obtained from a commentary by Erasmus. One must remember that Erasmus' work is about 90 years before the KJB, and that the TR witness is in other things besides actual Scripture copies, such as patristic citations, etc.

Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into English - a translation of a translation?

See above answer, also that the Latin was used to confirm the KJB's correct readings there is no doubt. However, the words of Revelation are/were found in the Greek.

Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts?

Principally because uncertainty now covers the Greek meanings, just as we might not be sure which text is correct at any place: but the KJB has it all gathered, and it all sense for sense rendered correct, in a language we can understand.

Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?

Preservation is continual, however, there are indications in Scripture that it must be perfectly presented, which cannot be seen fulfilled until the importance of the KJB was understood.

How did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?

How foolish. The Word of God has been around for years, whether scattered, or in partial copies, acceptable translations, etc. The Word of God was around long before 1611.

If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?

The inspired originals perished long ago, and the KJB does not correct them, it in fact gathers out of the evidence the correct text, and corrects any particular copies that might have variations. Thus, the KJB is the standard, eclectic-critical form, which matches exactly what was originally inspired, presenting it in one book, in one language.

Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?

It is all over the internet.

Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]

This is a slander which is jumped upon by people who have an a priori commitment to take hold of anything which fits their agenda. In this case, the accusation comes from a single disgruntled puritan.

Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?

Since the Word of God is not conformed to the world, but the world must conform to it (or rather, people coming out of the world and coming into the Kingdom), then this whole question is a foolish one which the Apostle Paul warned us against long ago.

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

They parrot the old foolish questions like:

The available manuscript evidence with respect to the Byzantine/Antiochian/Received text amounts to well over 5000, while the Alexandrian/Western/Egyptian text of Wescott and Hort amount to 45 manuscripts. It's interesting that the 5000-plus Antiochian texts are better than 95 percent in agreement and can be found on 3 continents: Africa, Asia, and Europe while the Alexandrian text is localized largely around the region of Alexandria and according I think to John Burgon in the 1880s, these 45 manuscripts can be traced to one author.

Grace and peace

Tony

[cliffordsndrs451]

Bibleprotector - I love your thoroughness. This is my first time to the site, you; I'm sure will be interesting. Thanks

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Luke

Oh wow, that page is actually laughably misinformed. He even claims the AV1611 is full of thousands upon thousands of spelling mistakes.

Brother, the origional 1611 did! So did Shakespeare, Chaucer, Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops Bible, Matthews/Coverdale, there was no standardization of spelling and punctuation until the 1760s. But the body of the text of the KJV has never been "revised". I Cor. 15:1-8, the gospel of Christ, remains the same as it did in 1611. Also, the 1611 edition was printed in the old German Gothic script.

Grace and peace

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Luke

King James was a fag? Haven't heard that one before..

I don't know why that would influence him, since most of his Christian rock stars are homo sympathizers..

That is a common accusation against James, Luke. 25 years after he died a man by the name of Anthony Weldon(I stand corrected on the name)published some kind of treatise accusing James of being homosexual. No one responded to it or indeed paid any attention to it due to the blatant falsehood of the charge until not long ago this accusation was discovered by one of the anti-KJV gang. They or course ignore the FACT that 2 homosexuals were closely involved with translating the NIV.

Grace and peace to you.

Tony

[CKG]

Originally Posted by Luke

King James was a fag? Haven't heard that one before.. .

Last Wednesday night at church someone informed me of this "startling revelation" that King James was a "flaming homosexual". The person who made this statement is someone I would consider intelligent and well read so I suggested they might want to go back and do a little research into the matter.

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. (Ecclesiastes 1:10)

[Debau]

Originally Posted by CKG

Last Wednesday night at church someone informed me of this "startling revelation" that King James was a "flaming homosexual". The person who made this statement is someone I would consider intelligent and well read so I suggested they might want to go back and do a little research into the matter.

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. (Ecclesiastes 1:10)

Was King James a homo? What does the EVIDENCE suggest? Bro. Stringer shows historical evidence vindicates King James.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...D=126091659547

The evidence puts to rest the foolish parroting that he was a fag.