King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

[SovereignGrace]

One day is as a thousand years, what can I say?

That you stretched the elastic in that verse too far, it snapped?

So, was it six literal says or 6,000 years?

 

[KJV1611]

There are several problems with this theory. Firstly, there is no indication that Peter's words are poetic. Given that he says, "do not be ignorant of this one thing", it would seem that he is talking facts, not "spiritual language". The NASB actually uses the word "fact" there.

Secondly, the fact that the statement is presented both ways negates applying just half of it to Adam's situation. In other words, you can't have it both ways.

Thirdly, this is talking about God, not mankind. Fourthly, this is talking about God's patience, not about any part of our life.

Fifthly, this is a metaphor, a comparison which, in this case, uses "as" to relate one concept to another, without saying that one thing is actually another thing.

Sixthly, this kind of reasoning undermines every use of "day" in the Bible... including the ones in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20.

Do you believe the earth is 6000 years old? Do you believe we are about to enter the 7th?

 

[SovereignGrace]

One day is as a thousand years, what can I say?

Well, you backed yourself in a corner. If the 1611 KJV is inspired, then it can not contained typos, which you just admitted it had a few posts ago.

You guys also said that the revised editions are better, so then the 1769 is better than the inspired 1611 version.

You guys said newer versions are corrupted.

So, which is it?

 

[KJV1611]

I think part of the issue is that they cannot see what contradictions are there. Concession to these would devastate their faith because their faith is in ink printed on paper.

Therefore they become purposefully impenetrable, they indoctrinate one another with their sectarianism, their faith is in jeopardy if they concede to translational errors and KJV error.

I'll put it like this: If proof were given that showed the KJV to have errors, contradictions, errant translation, they would unfortunately crumble concerning their faith. I know there are already those proofs, but I am simply illustrating their position. They must take the position because again their faith would crumble and they wouldn't know how to recover, so they hang on to 1611ism. Not Christ. It is 1611ism they are hanging on to. (not that they aren't born again, I am not saying that).

Acutally I see the bible completely different than you, things like typos and spelling errors aren't errors to me.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Acutally I see the bible completely different than you, things like typos and spelling errors aren't errors to me.

Of course. But would the Spirit cause them to have typos?

 

[KJV1611]

The Aramaic language!

My Christian faith does not allow me to continue this dialogue.

Why would a simple question like showing evidence of what you say is true violate your faith?

 

[KJV1611]

Of course. But would the Spirit cause them to have typos?

You know I really feel like you're not interested in honest debate. So I'm not going to answer childish questions.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Do you believe the earth is 6000 years old? Do you believe we are about to enter the 7th?

If a 1,000 years is as a day, then the earth could be 12,000 years old. It could have taken Him 6,000 years to create it, or it could have been six literal days. Which is it?

 

[KJV1611]

Well, you backed yourself in a corner. If the 1611 KJV is inspired, then it can not contained typos, which you just admitted it had a few posts ago.

You guys also said that the revised editions are better, so then the 1769 is better than the inspired 1611 version.

You guys said newer versions are corrupted.

So, which is it?

I would like for take the verses in error and explain the error to me.

 

[SovereignGrace]

You know I really feel like you're not interested in honest debate. So I'm not going to answer childish questions.

Its not a childish question. You hold to this notion the 1611 KJV is inspired, yet it contains typos?

Now, please answer theses...

If the 1611 KJV is inspired, then it can not contained typos, which you just admitted it had a few posts ago.

You guys also said that the revised editions are better, so then the 1769 is better than the inspired 1611 version.

You guys said newer versions are corrupted.

So, which is it?

Thanks in advance.

 

[KJV1611]

That you stretched the elastic in that verse too far, it snapped?

So, was it six literal says or 6,000 years?

Well if you look at the genealogies in the bible you would know.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Well if you look at the genealogies in the bible you would know.

Huh? Please answer. 6 literal days or 6,000 years?

 

[KJV1611]

Huh? Please answer. 6 literal days or 6,000 years?

6 literal days, that's all it can be to match the rest of scripture.

 

[SovereignGrace]

6 literal days, that's all it can be to match the rest of scripture.

Now, will you please address this?

Well, you backed yourself in a corner. If the 1611 KJV is inspired, then it can not contained typos, which you just admitted it had a few posts ago.

You guys also said that the revised editions are better, so then the 1769 is better than the inspired 1611 version.

You guys said newer versions are corrupted.

So, which is it?

Thanks in advance...

 

[KJV1611]

Now, will you please address this?



Thanks in advance...

Show me one of the corruptions and tell me how it's corrupt.

 

[KJV1611]

Now, will you please address this?



Thanks in advance...

Try this one first, I think it's the most greivous... show me the corruption and we can discuss it.

11 Behold, the Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord of all the earth, passeth ouer before you, into Iordan.
11 Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Show me one of the corruptions and tell me how it's corrupt.

That's not what I asked.

You guys aver that the 1611 KJV is inspired.

You admitted the 1611 KJV had typos.

You stated newer versions are corrupted.

You stated that the revisions are better than the originals in regards to the 1611 KJV being better than the mss they used.

How is that consistent?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Try this one first, I think it's the most greivous... show me the corruption and we can discuss it.

11 Behold, the Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord of all the earth, passeth ouer before you, into Iordan.
11 Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan.

I will ask these questions one post at a time so I can have you focus on them one at a time.

If the 1611 is the inspired word of God, then how could the 1769 be an improvement and a corrupted version at the same time?

 

[KJV1611]

I will ask these questions one post at a time so I can have you focus on them one at a time.

If the 1611 is the inspired word of God, then how could the 1769 be an improvement and a corrupted version at the same time?

They both say the same thing, the language and spelling were updated.

 

[SovereignGrace]

They both say the same thing, the language and spelling were updated.

Okay. So, ppl can improve upon that which was inspired?