JesusIsFaithful
Well-Known Member
- Feb 24, 2015
- 1,765
- 439
- 83
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
You can doubt as much as you wish. But I know that God tells me to reject such foolishness as KJV ONLYYISM.
It is for this reason that you see me as KJVOnlyism is why you are not hearing to me. Just because I am showing why I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words in these latter days where faith is hard to find and modern Bibles are supporting false teachings and false tongues and thus apostasy is not grounds to say that I am of KJVOnlyism when "they" are not even addressing the claim I am making here.
God is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. It is all in His omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent hands.
Right. Only Jesus can confirm what I have been sharing with you. Prove everything by Him or don't. So far, you are showing signs that you are just disagreeing with what I say is false tongues and false teaching and as apostasy for the reason why you disagree with what He has been sharing thru me.
I don't have to provide a link, and you cannot tell me HOW I can respond.
The claim that the KJV translaters themselves said that there was a verse in the KJV that they had no manuscript for to not correct this "error" is a new one for me. That is why I had asked you to prove it, otherwise I am not taking you at your word.
If you have the AV1611 as I do, you'll see that the KJV translators knew their translation was not perfect and they said so. They also said that Christians should study other Bibles for comparison. It's located in the very front of that translation. It's title is: THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READERWhen the 1599 Geneva Bible was the majority version that was in use, I hardly believe that they would mean also the "future" modern day versions that existed after the KJV today.
Here are the selected quotes, but you can find them at the link I have provided for the purpose of obeying the site rules about citing works.
I am leaving your quote out of the quote box so readers can read it better.
"A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. The Translators to the Reader "
That is not the same as accidentally making lies in the scripture that runs contrary to the rest of scripture. Scripture cannot go against scripture. This was how the lost books were not considered scripture when certain lies in it ran against the accepted books in the Bible back then.
"But it is high time to leave them, and to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html
Thank you for providing the link, but you are not reading this right. I shall edit it to help you and others see better.
"we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,.....but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."
So the goal of the KJV translators was to make the best Bible translation ever to be used as the one to go by for everyone. So do not deny this.
"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html
I believe that is referring to the many manuscripts that varies to find the sense in the margin where the text is not clear to make that one principal good one for which they are persuaded in reaching this goal.
So in spite of the way this link's address says that you had provided below; the KJV translators were actually for making the KJV the only one to go by as the principal good one.
Robert Joyner - Were the KJV Translators KJV Only?
"On page 7, the King James translators say, "Nay, we affirm and avow that the meanest translation of the Bible in English is the word of God." (See Appendix A, quote 4) When they say "meanest" they mean the poorest, the worst. So they believed that every translation was the word of God, no matter how many mistakes it had. This is the exact opposite of those who believe the King James is the only Bible for the English speaking people. Those who revere the King James translators so much believe just the opposite of what the translators themselves believed."
No. Robert Joyner is plain wrong. Meanest may infer the poorest or the worst, but it does not mean mistakes or lies in the word of God. Robert Joyner went outside the quote from the KJV translators to input his opinion on their words.
The KJV translators included the Book of Apocrypha and other books inbetween the O.T. & the N.T. as a reference material but the KJV translators never considered them scripture. AND I definitely can say that they should be appalled by what modern Bibles have been changing the message in His words today when it supports false tongues, false teachings, and apostasy.
As I have said before I believe I have read everything or almost everything, both pro and con regarding KJVOnlyism
Not with discernment, you have not. You did not prove everything by Him in KJVOnlyism. I know enough of KJVYOnlyism to say I do not care to be identified with it because of some of the extremism in it like condemning christians for reading or using another Bible version. The scripture says not to condemn christians, but to correct christians. That is where I draw the line. That is why I am not KJVOnlyist.
I do not post things that I don't know about. I'm not perfect by any means. I am a redeemed sinner just like you. But I have seen so much division, damage and discord shown, that I have made it my business to read up on both sides.
I am not perfect either which is why I rely on Him for wisdom as I am counting on Jesus Christ to be my Good Shepherd.