Did Jesus say that adultery is grounds for divorce? - Nope.

[Behold]

Shhhhh
Adults were talking and you interrupted....

Take your Bible and go back into the corner....k?

I noticed you can't even respond to the post's information.

Here it is again..

Your KJV history is your personally warped pipe dream. @JohnDB


The fact is, that nearly every great Preacher , ... Wesley, Spurgeon, Cartwright, and all the amazing "end time specialists" like Dakes, and Matthew Henry.. and Clarence Larkin...
And now add in

James Kennedy
Adrian Rogers
David Jeremiah
Lloyd Ogilvie
Billy Graham

Now add in EVERY GREAT REVIVAL since 175O..


What do all those have in common?

They were all ORIGINALLY under the direct Influence of the "Authorized Version" the KJV, even if later they decided to be stupid later in their old age.... and try to correct the BIBLE with the K.Greek.

A.) That's the History, Reader......of this particular bible.

So, dont let those who hate the KJV rabbit hole you into their particular ignorant obsession.

 

[JohnDB]

I noticed you can't even respond to the post's information.

Here it is again..

Your KJV history is your personally warped pipe dream. @JohnDB


The fact is, that nearly every great Preacher , ... Wesley, Spurgeon, Cartwright, and all the amazing "end time specialists" like Dakes, and Matthew Henry.. and Clarence Larkin...
And now add in

James Kennedy
Adrian Rogers
David Jeremiah
Lloyd Ogilvie
Billy Graham

Now add in EVERY GREAT REVIVAL since 175O..


What do all those have in common?

They were all ORIGINALLY under the direct Influence of the "Authorized Version" the KJV, even if later they decided to be stupid later in their old age.... and try to correct the BIBLE with the K.Greek.

A.) That's the History, Reader......of this particular bible.

So, dont let those who hate the KJV rabbit hole you into their particular ignorant obsession.

I did not respond because it's not relevant information or to the purpose of this thread.

I can't help someone uninterested in history and has a particular agenda's axe to grind.

The truth is the truth. It doesn't grow or expand the way your information does.

 

[Behold]

I did not respond because it's not relevant information or to the purpose of this thread.

You have a short memory or a dishonest heart.

Let me remind you of why i posted the History of the Influence of the KJV.

Its because of a KJV Hater's obsession, who posted this..unprovable nonsense. ( see Quote).

You really need to get over your KJV Only-ism mindset..

@JohnDB said...

"""""The modern KJV = It really never was popular until a massive marketing campaign in the 1920's."""""

 

[JohnDB]

You have a short memory or a dishonest heart.

Let me remind you of why i posted the History of the Influence of the KJV.

Its because of a KJV Hater's obsession, who posted this..unprovable nonsense. ( see Quote).

You really need to get over your KJV Only-ism mindset..

@JohnDB said...

"""""The modern KJV = It really never was popular until a massive marketing campaign in the 1920's."""""

I don't hate the KJV. (It was my first Bible) I only know it's accurate place in history...the relevant reasons why...
Matthew 19 being a cheif reason.

And it really was not popular until a massive marketing campaign of the 1920's. Until then the Old ESV was popular. Many of the old "Family Bibles" with family histories before the 1920's were ESV. The ones handed down from generation to generation.

I've looked at my family bibles...both of them. Both are ESV. Both start before WW1 or Civil war...neither are the cotton/paper blend that makes certain Bibles valuable. (Most Geneva Bibles are this way) But the writing is pretty and done with fountain pens (not duck or goose quill I don't think)

You are all caught up in propaganda instead of history. Try real history.

 

[Behold]

And it really was not popular until a massive marketing campaign of the 1920's.

Obviously you have no Issue with the KJV< as that is why you spend some much time here also spitting on other versions.

Right?

Uh huh.

So, as showed you, all the revivals since 1750, and almost every notable preacher, and that list is so long... starting a long time ago... were called to preach under the preaching of the KJV.
That is well before the '1920s, and afterwards.

I use a few bible versions, in case you are wondering ....

also, the Authorized Version has a "crown copyright"..

That means its free to print.
anyone can print it, whereas "New" Bibles are created to make MONEY.

 

[JohnDB]

Obviously you have no Issue with the KJV< as that is why you spend some much time here also spitting on other versions.

Right?

Uh huh.

So, as showed you, all the revivals since 1750, and almost every notable preacher, and that list is so long... starting a long time ago... were called to preach under the preaching of the KJV.
That is well before the '1920s, and afterwards.

I use a few bible versions, in case you are wondering ....

also, the Authorized Version has a "crown copyright"..

That means its free to print.
anyone can print it, whereas "New" Bibles are created to make MONEY.

You have me confused with someone else.

There's only a few "new" translations that "I spit on". None have been mentioned.

 

[Behold]

You have me confused with someone else.

There's only a few "new" translations that "I spit on". None have been mentioned.

Who wrote this?

""" It really never was popular until a massive marketing campaign in the 1920's."""

 

[JohnDB]

Who wrote this?

""" It really never was popular until a massive marketing campaign in the 1920's."""

I wrote it...because it accurately reflects the historical record. It's not spitting on the translation. The KJV existed for 100 years before the marketing campaign of the1920's here in America made it popular. It was used of course...but it wasn't really that popular.

Here's something for you to Google: "The Wicked Bible". It really wasn't wicked or evil....it just had a type setting issue.

 

[St. SteVen]

(Most Geneva Bibles are this way) But the writing is pretty and done with fountain pens (not duck or goose quill I don't think)

The fonts look rather ornate, but were probably typeset rather than hand lettered.
This looks like mono-type to me. Individual letters made of lead handset for the text and headlines.
The set-up required a lot of handwork. But reproductions went quickly compared to scribe lettered books.





/

 

[Behold]

I wrote it...because it accurately reflects the historical record.

I think it reflects your feelings, more then anything else.

Here is "other History"

You have free will, so, chose to believe as you will..

(Regarding the Geneva Bible _... =""The American Puritan leadership could not have this, and along with the expulsion of Hutchinson from Massachusetts came the condemnation of the Geneva Bible--and the triumph of the KJV.

So throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when English-speaking Americans cited the Bible, they absolutely overwhelmingly cited the KJV. American Catholics did have the Douay-Rheims translation, which contains the Old Testament apocrypha not found in standard Protestant Bibles.

The alphabet soup of English-language Bible translations that we know today didn't get started until the late 19th century or flourish until the 20th.""""

 

[St. SteVen]

Here's something for you to Google: "The Wicked Bible". It really wasn't wicked or evil....it just had a type setting issue.

Wow. Oops!
"Thou shalt commit adultery." - LOL



/

 

[JohnDB]

Then there the Bible used by Benjamin Franklin....(Bishop's Bible)
Then there's Thomas Jefferson's Bible. Which actually was what was common....in order to get a degree of higher learning you first had to get a seminary degree, part of which was translating your own Bible into English from Latin texts.

The fonts look rather ornate, but were probably typeset rather than hand lettered.
This looks like mono-type to me. Individual letters made of lead handset for the text and headlines.
The set-up required a lot of handwork. But reproductions went quickly compared to scribe lettered books.

View attachment 43671
View attachment 43672

View attachment 43673
/

That's a front page...it's ornate. The type inside is similar to the "Times New Roman" used today. The paper often today feels different due to the cotton or wool content and there are customarily tiny holes in every page today from worms eating the fibers in such an old Bible.

The writing I was speaking about was the geanological records written by my ancestors.

 

[Behold]

Then there the Bible used by Benjamin Franklin....(Bishop's Bible)

After it was published in 1611, the King James Version soon took the Bishops' Bible's place as the de facto standard of the Church of England.

Then there's Thomas Jefferson's Bible.

T. Jefferson used a razor to cut passages from six copies of the New Testament—two in Greek and Latin, two in French and two in English and rearranged and pasted together the selected verses, shorn of any sign of the miraculous or supernatural in order to leave just the life and teachings of Jesus behind.

At least He wasn't a Hyper Calvinist., as far as i know.

If you study what TJ said about calvinism, then this is what you'll find.

""""""Jefferson intensely opposed Calvinism. He never ceased to denounce the "blasphemous absurdity of the five points of Calvin," writing three years before his death to John Adams, "His [Calvin's] religion was Demonism. If ever man worshiped a false God, he did.""

 

[O'Darby]

Mrs. O'Darby with the Gutenberg Bible. Gute was on his lunch break, so we couldn't ask questions.

 

[Behold]

Jefferson Bible
-

 

[JohnDB]

After it was published in 1611, the King James Version soon took the Bishops' Bible's place as the de facto standard of the Church of England.



T. Jefferson used a razor to cut passages from six copies of the New Testament—two in Greek and Latin, two in French and two in English and rearranged and pasted together the selected verses, shorn of any sign of the miraculous or supernatural in order to leave just the life and teachings of Jesus behind.

At least He wasn't a Hyper Calvinist., as far as i know.

If you study what TJ said about calvinism, then this is what you'll find.

""""""Jefferson intensely opposed Calvinism. He never ceased to denounce the "blasphemous absurdity of the five points of Calvin," writing three years before his death to John Adams, "His [Calvin's] religion was Demonism. If ever man worshiped a false God, he did.""

Calvinism was popular because of the "glosses" or notes in the Geneva Bible....and the subsequent ESV translation that was a popular English translation. And no...what you have claimed about Thomas Jefferson is untrue. You really need to study history properly from ACCURATE sources.

(Side note: I know the propaganda campaigns for the KJV...I just don't believe it due to overwhelming contradictory truths)

You have said your piece...let us have some peace away from your axe grinding and drum beating.

 

[Behold]

Calvinism was popular because of the "glosses" or notes in the Geneva Bible...

Over half of the people on this forum are Calvinists or hyper Calvinists.

Is that because of the Geneva bible that noone here has ever seen in person?

So, maybe you can be turn off your misinformation @JohnDB ?

.and the subsequent ESV translation that was a popular English translation.

Being a popular Translation, is not what im showing you.
Im showing you that the KJV is the main bible, long before the "in the 1920's" fabrication concept that you posted.

And no...what you have claimed about Thomas Jefferson is untrue.

What i posted came from a Letter He wrote to John Adams., concerning T.Jefferson's low opinion of John Calvinism.

That's the history.
Dont let it get in the way of your original creations.

You have said your piece..

Well, if you'll not post back to me regarding our discussion..., or if you stop posting misinformation about the KJV< then, im good.

That's on you.
See you there.

 

[JohnDB]

Over half of the people on this forum are Calvinists or hyper Calvinists.

Is that because of the Geneva bible that noone here has ever seen in person?

So, maybe you can be turn off your misinformation @JohnDB ?




Being a popular Translation, is not what im showing you.
Im showing you that the KJV is the main bible, long before the "in the 1920's" fabrication concept that you posted.



What i posted came from a Letter He wrote to John Adams.

That's the history.
Dont let it get in the way of your original creations.



Well, if you post back to me, or if you stop posting misinformation about the KJV< then, im good.

That's on you.

Do you even know what the topic of this thread is?

Wanna discuss any of that?
(Unless you are a one subject idiot who can't discuss anything else but your beloved and warped view of the KJV....as if God has NOT preserved his scriptures for the world today)

 

[Behold]

Do you even know what the topic of this thread is?

Wanna discuss any of that?
(Unless you are a one subject idiot who can't discuss anything else but your beloved and warped view of the KJV....as if God has NOT preserved his scriptures for the world today)

If i was a "one subject idiot" then you'd feel right at home..@JohnDB

So, sure..

Here you go... as you requested.
-

For this particular subject, the KJV is where you need to go, as some other versions really translated this verse completely wrong.

Notice..


""""So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."""""

Now LOOK..

"If while her husband liveth, she be married to another man'' = "called an adulteress".


Now here is how that is wrongly taught.

1.) She got married to a 2nd Husband, = Adultery.


Now look at the verse again, Reader.

Its says if her Husband is not dead and she be married to another Husband.

How many husbands does she have?

She has 2 Husbands..

She never divorced the first one...

READ THE VERSE..


So, this woman has 2 Husbands... and there is another word for that.....

 

[JohnDB]

Over half of the people on this forum are Calvinists or hyper Calvinists.

Is that because of the Geneva bible that noone here has ever seen in person?

So, maybe you can be turn off your misinformation @JohnDB ?




Being a popular Translation, is not what im showing you.
Im showing you that the KJV is the main bible, long before the "in the 1920's" fabrication concept that you posted.



What i posted came from a Letter He wrote to John Adams., concerning T.Jefferson's low opinion of John Calvinism.

That's the history.
Dont let it get in the way of your original creations.



Well, if you'll not post back to me regarding our discussion..., or if you stop posting misinformation about the KJV< then, im good.

That's on you.
See you there.

I'm not the one who blew up the issue into gargantuan proportions.

And the TJ Bible I was referring to was his own, hand written and transcribed copy of the scriptures. Not the printed one you have posted a picture of.