C.S. LEWIS was not christian/ C.S LEWIS exposed

[AgeofKnowledge]

Are you asserting that genuine born again Christians whom happen to live in the United States are going to be judged harsher at the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10) than the Easter Island pagans are at the white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15)?

The people who live in America will be more accountable in the Day of Judgment than those who lived in isolated areas like Easter Island (Rapa Nui).

 

[Nautilus]

so it took 1611 years roughly for God to perfect his word? That sounds like a load of crap... If its from God shouldnt it have been perfect in the begininng?

 

[ChosenbyHim]

I have some questions, I see you have expertise in the "Bible Version Issue".

(1) What, exactly, is a King James Bible? Which revision: 1611, 1762 Cambridge, 1769 Oxford, or another revision? Why?

Well Praus, I don't consider myself an expert on the Bible Version Issue, but I have studied it for a good while. So I do have some knowledge about the issue.


Also, those aren't revisions Praus. Those are editions. But not revisions. The text of the Authorized Version has not been altered or changed. Nor has it's underlying Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The King James Bible that we have today is the same one that was published in 1611.

At one time, the American Bible Society did a study on the text of the Authorized Version and they examined the nature of the changes that it went through. And this is what they concluded:

"The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text... With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators"(Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).


So the nature of the changes were simply that of font, typography and spelling changes. But the very text itself has not been changed. And keep in mind that the American Bible Society today promotes and publishes a lot of the modern versions.

And so the so called "revisions" of the King James Bible that people like to bring up are actually just editions with updating of spelling and the correction of minor printing errors.

I want to share a quote this time from Pastor David Reagan who wrote:

"We need to establish one thing from the out-set. The authority for our preserved English text is not found in any human work. The authority for our preserved and infallible English text is in God! Printers may foul up at times and humans will still make plenty of errors, but God in His power and mercy will preserve His text despite the weaknesses of fallible man."

(2) If the KJV was perfect in 1611, why update it at all, since you describe the 1611 revision as "God's perfect and pure word"?

Well again Praus, what was the nature of the updating of it? A lot of it had to do with spelling changes: (i.e. weepe to weep, hee to he, sleepe to sleep, knewe to knew, and so forth.)

And the nature of those spelling changes do not constitute or compose a revision.

And so the text simply went through a purifying process. Where it got better and better.

On the contrary the new versions are constantly being revised and changed, and they are actually getting worse and not better. Even the underlying Hebrew and Greek text of these modern versions is being changed. Look up some of Will Kinney's work. There is an article he did on the New American Standard Bible alone. And he wrote about how the text of the NASB is constantly being changed and revised. Here is a link to the article where you can read it for yourself:


ever changing NASBs - Another King James Bible Believer

(3) Are the 1762 Cambridge and 1769 Oxford "new versions"? Do you defend them or use only the 1611?

The 1762 and 1769 are editions. Again, they are not revisions. There is only one King James Bible. Not two or three. Just one.

Now when I say one, I am not referring to as in copies, because obviously there are numerous copies of the King James Bible. What I am referring to though, is the fact that the text of the Authorized Version has remained unaltered and unchanged.

(4) Is it the gospel of Iohn or the gospel of John?

Well let me ask you Praus, does Iohn and John have the same meaning? Is it the same name?

View attachment 55707

Both of the following are from the King James Bible. If both are perfect and pure, then why are they different?

Iohn 1:12 But as many as receiued him, to them gaue hee power to become the sonnes of God, [euen] to them that beleeue on his Name: (KJV 1611)

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: (KJV PCE)

View attachment 55706

Praus, you are clearly straining at a gnat here. What you just showed me is the spelling differences of the same words. That's all.

Again, my question to you is this. Do the two passages same the same thing? And do they mean the same thing?

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Are you asserting that genuine born again Christians whom happen to live in the United States are going to be judged harsher at the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10) than the Easter Island pagans are at the white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15)?

Hi there AgeofKnowledge, well what I was referring to is the people in America who have heard the Gospel time and time again and have refused to repent and get saved. They will be judged harsher at the Great White Throne Judgement than those who never got to hear the Gospel. Also consider how blessed we are to have a complete Bible. Do you realize that there are people in third world countries who don't have a complete Bible? Some are fortunate enough to get the Gospel of John in their own language. That is just something to keep in perspective.

The Judgment Seat of Christ is obviously only for Born again Christians. And at that Judgment, our works which we did for God after salvation will be judged.


And yeah we also will have to give account of our lives. And for the amount of truth which we have been shown. This is another thing to consider. There are many Christians right now being persecuted as we speak. And depending on where they live, some may not even have access to a Bible. And I know it is easy here in America to take things for granted. And while persecution hasn't gotten to severe in America yet, still keep in mind that there are hate crime laws in the works right now that the liberals are trying to get passed. Some may have already been passed.

Now pertaining to the persecution that has taken place and that is taking place outside of the United States, I heard recently about a preacher in Canada several years ago being ordered to renounce his faith and to never again express moral opposition to Sodomy. Also, I saw that another preacher over in London got arrested for quoting what the Bible said in regard to Sodomy. And that's not all, did you know that as recent as March of this year that the supreme court in Canada ruled the Bible as "hate speech?"

Things are getting really bad out there. As you can see. And it probably won't be too long before severe persecution hits America. Right now, I know that things are still quite good here in America. The Gospel is still being preached. Gospel Tracts are being distributed and put out. And for the most part, we still have a lot of our freedoms. But that can change very soon.

So we definitely need to be more grateful and appreciative for what we still have here. And as God shows us more and more truth, we should make the required changes and adjustments in our Christian lives to please Him and to continue be in close fellowship with Him.

 

[Praus]

Well Praus, I don't consider myself an expert on the Bible Version Issue, but I have studied it for a good while. So I do have some knowledge about the issue.

Also, those aren't revisions Praus. Those are editions. But not revisions. The text of the Authorized Version has not been altered or changed. Nor has it's underlying Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The King James Bible that we have today is the same one that was published in 1611.

So the nature of the changes were simply that of font, typography and spelling changes. But the very text itself has not been changed. And keep in mind that the American Bible Society today promotes and publishes a lot of the modern versions.

And so the so called "revisions" of the King James Bible that people like to bring up are actually just editions with updating of spelling and the correction of minor printing errors.

And so the text simply went through a purifying process. Where it got better and better.

The 1762 and 1769 are editions. Again, they are not revisions. There is only one King James Bible. Not two or three. Just one.

Well let me ask you Praus, does Iohn and John have the same meaning? Is it the same name?

Praus, you are clearly straining at a gnat here. What you just showed me is the spelling differences of the same words. That's all.

Again, my question to you is this. Do the two passages same the same thing? And do they mean the same thing?

They're editions, not revisions, my mistake, thanks for clarifying. I guess I'm not qualified to decide who's straining at a gnat.

The John and Iohn are the same name, and the passages indeed say the same thing and mean exactly the same thing. Praus and Praÿs are the same name so it must be true, right?

We can talk about modern versions a little later, the KJV is the topic.

Next question:

Matt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (KJV-PCE)

How do following verses qualify as "spelling differences of the same words"? Don't strain at a gnat here, but do mind your jots and tittles.

Ezek 24:7 - adds the word "not"
For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust: (KJV 1611)

For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust; (KJV-PCE)

1 Cor 15:6 - replaces the word "and" with the word "after"
And that hee was seene of aboue fiue hundred brethren at once: of whom the greater part remaine vnto this present, but some are fallen asleepe. (KJV 1611)

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. (KJV-PCE)

 

[Praus]

so it took 1611 years roughly for God to perfect his word? That sounds like a load of ****... If its from God shouldnt it have been perfect in the begininng?

Indeed it's a load. I have the following for sale.

Apostle Paul's personal KJV Bible - $450,000 or best offer
Esau's personal KJV Bible - $150,000 or best offer

 

[Tintin]

Indeed it's a load. I have the following for sale.

Apostle Paul's personal KJV Bible - $450,000 or best offer
Esau's personal KJV Bible - $150,000 or best offer

Beat this guys! I have Adam's personal KJV Bible, signed by God. It's from before Eve was even created. I can't let it go for any less than $7,777,777.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

They're editions, not revisions, my mistake, thanks for clarifying. I guess I'm not qualified to decide who's straining at a gnat.

The John and Iohn are the same name, and the passages indeed say the same thing and mean exactly the same thing. Praus and Praÿs are the same name so it must be true, right?

We can talk about modern versions a little later, the KJV is the topic.

Next question:

Matt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (KJV-PCE)

How do following verses qualify as "spelling differences of the same words"? Don't strain at a gnat here, but do mind your jots and tittles.

Ezek 24:7 - adds the word "not"
For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust: (KJV 1611)

For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust; (KJV-PCE)

1 Cor 15:6 - replaces the word "and" with the word "after"
And that hee was seene of aboue fiue hundred brethren at once: of whom the greater part remaine vnto this present, but some are fallen asleepe. (KJV 1611)

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. (KJV-PCE)

Well Praus, this is the first time that this has been brought to my attention regarding Ezekiel 24:7. And I simply don't have an answer for it. You see, I told you that I did not consider myself an expert on this issue

But I was able to find a written response by Pastor David F. Reagan (the man I quoted in the last post), as this was brought to his attention a while back when a man by the name of Michael Penfold asked him a question (sarcastically) about Ezekiel 24:7:



Mr. Penfold's words will be in green and Mr. Reagan's will be in blue:


Supposed Contradiction in Ezekiel 24:7

A bookshop owner here in England (Michael Penfold of Penfold Book and Bible House) has recently produced a leaflet called "Is the King James Version Perfect?" in which he lists all of the 'errors' in the AV, details the differences between the 1611 and the one we have today and also belittles those of us that hold the AV to be the infallible word of God. A couple of brothers and I are preparing a thorough reply to this leaflet. I believe that if we don't it may do some Bible believers some harm. The Lord helping us we have managed to answer nearly all of the points he raises. However he does make reference to a textual change in Ezekiel 24:7
.

1611 KJV "she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust."​

Current KJV "she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust."


​

Penfold then asks in light of this,

which one is the infallible word of God?


I have a copy of your article entitled The Myth of Early Revisions which has been most helpful. However, with regard to the above, it is obviously a textual change with the reading being opposite. Albeit I note Dr Scrivener records it as being amended in 1613.

Although I have some ideas, I would be grateful if you could please offer some advice on this one as if we can 'nail' this point then we can go back to Mr. Penfold and God willing help him to change his mind.


Now here is David Reagan's answered to Michael Penfold's question:

Thank you for your letter. I am always interested in the latest attacks on the word of God.
Pulling out Ezekiel 24:7
shows me the desperation to which these fellows are driven to attack the King James Bible. It is so obviously a printing error in the 1611 edition that it hardly needs defense. However, I will do so for those who need it.

Any particular copy of the King James Bible does not have to be error-free for the Bible to be the infallibly preserved Bible in the English language. Typographical errors continue to occur in Bibles today even with our superior computer checking and long-term correction of errors. If any particular copy of the Bible is found to have a misprint, we simply correct it in the next printing or in the text of our particular copy of the Bible.

The error in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible in Ezekiel 24:7
is clearly a misprint which was spotted and corrected so early that there can be no honest opposition to this truth. First, let's eliminate the other possibilities.

1. It is not a textual problem--by this I mean that there is no difference in the Hebrew text that would cause them to translate without the "not." The Hebrew Masoretic text used for the translation of the King James Bible has the Hebrew word "lo", meaning "no" or "not". I also checked several modern translations. They all have the negative so there is no problem with a different Hebrew text.
2. It is not a translation problem. There is no reason to believe that the King James translators translated this passage which clearly has a "not" without the negative. In fact, the early correction (1613) proves that this was an error in the first printing.
3. It is not a doctrinal error. One of the interesting things about the printing errors in the King James editions is that they are either so benign that hardly any difference can be discerned in meaning or they are so obvious (as in this case) that they are simple to correct. One early edition had "Printers have persecuted me without cause" in Psalms 119:161. This is not something to lose our religion over. Rather, it is amusing to consider what "printers" have done to the Bible. Correct it in the text (write the correct words in) or in the next printing but don't glee over your superiority to the Bible God has given to us. One other thought: even though the Ezekiel 24:7
4. example is the opposite of what it should be, I would challenge anyone to try and teach any false doctrine from the misprint.

What is it then? It is a printing error. Either the handwritten copy of Ezekiel handed to the printers had the not inadvertently left out or the printers themselves failed to see the not when they laid out the type. I believe that the Lord preserved His word through the translation process, but I do not believe that He kept the hundreds of people involved in the process from making any mistakes. These few and minor errors would be corrected over a period of time.
A simple word like "not" is very easy to leave out when making a copy of something. However, it is also very easy to put back in when the mistake is discovered. This was done in 1613--only 2 years after the original printing! So, for the last 389 years (out of the 391 since the original King James printing), we have had the correct printing in Ezekiel 24:7
--the one that certainly matches the translation decision of the 1611 translators.
Attacking the King James Bible on the basis of such printing errors shows a profound hatred for the Bible used by God for the saving of more souls, the sending of more missionaries, the establishing of more churches, the strengthening of more believers and the stirring of more revivals than any other edition of the Bible in any language for the last 2,000 years--including those in the original tongues. I actually feel sorry for people like that.

David Reagan

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Well Praus, I hope this helped. And in regard to 1 Corinthians 15:6, again I do not have an answer. But I think you are still straining at a gnat here with this one Praus.

Again, does a change in meaning occur in the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:6 between And and After?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

LOLOLOLOL!

I think it's time to take Nautilus off ignore.

so it took 1611 years roughly for God to perfect his word? That sounds like a load of crap... If its from God shouldnt it have been perfect in the begininng?

 

[Praus]

Well Praus, this is the first time that this has been brought to my attention regarding Ezekiel 24:7. And I simply don't have an answer for it. You see, I told you that I did not consider myself an expert on this issue

I'm not an expert either, I'm only a simple Christian who studies from the KJV about 90% of the time. Call it a KJV-best position for lack of a better term. Given that, the very notion that I'm attacking "the word of God" or the KJV is ludicrous.

Twill, don't mind Agricola. We who believe that the Authorized King James Bible is God's perfect word also understand that there are a lot of Christians out there who are ignorant of the Bible Version Issue.

But yeah definitely check out the King James Code and the Bible Numerics Phenomenon. It's really unique. And I saw it as just more proof that God's perfect and pure word is the Authorized King James Bible.

We've gone from "simply don't have an answer for it" to "more proof" without skipping a beat.

Must you call your brethren ignorant, master?

James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. (KJV-PCE)

Psalm 12 is written in Hebrew, not English. How does one equivocate purity of the KJV with the original Hebrew?

Ps 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (KJV-PCE)

But I was able to find a written response by Pastor David F. Reagan (the man I quoted in the last post), as this was brought to his attention a while back when a man by the name of Michael Penfold asked him a question (sarcastically) about Ezekiel 24:7:

I enjoy Reagan and Penfold's writings and I agree with their on the printing error. I continue to disagree with your position on spelling errors only.

Attacking the King James Bible on the basis of such printing errors shows a profound hatred for the Bible used by God for the saving of more souls, the sending of more missionaries, the establishing of more churches, the strengthening of more believers and the stirring of more revivals than any other edition of the Bible in any language for the last 2,000 years--including those in the original tongues. I actually feel sorry for people like that.

Reagan's conclusion is that Praus has a "profound hatred for the Bible" and he "feel sorry for people like" me. This is typical of KJV-only "experts".

Since you cited Reagan do you agree with Reagan's conclusion?

James 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion [is] vain. (KJV-PCE)

Why should Christians take Reagan seriously?

 

[Praus]

Well Praus, I hope this helped. And in regard to 1 Corinthians 15:6, again I do not have an answer. But I think you are still straining at a gnat here with this one Praus.
Again, does a change in meaning occur in the passage in 1 Corinthians 15:6 between And and After?

The correct word and correct meaning is always the one that's the best translation of Scrivener's 1877 Textus Receptus.

Novum Testamentum : textus Stephanici A.D. 1550 : accedunt variae lectiones editionum Bezae, Elzeviri, Lachmanni, Tischendorfii, Tregellesii : Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose, 1813-1891 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

So the nature of the changes were simply that of font, typography and spelling changes. But the very text itself has not been changed. And keep in mind that the American Bible Society today promotes and publishes a lot of the modern versions.

And so the so called "revisions" of the King James Bible that people like to bring up are actually just editions with updating of spelling and the correction of minor printing errors.

Twill, don't mind Agricola. We who believe that the Authorized King James Bible is God's perfect word also understand that there are a lot of Christians out there who are ignorant of the Bible Version Issue.


Now is it wrong once you learn about the Bible Version Issue to continue to use the new versions and to defend them? Yes it is wrong. And those Christians who know about the real issue and continue to persist in their error will answer for it at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

So the text has changed and also has not changed.

You defend that assertion by changing to the topic from the actual text changes to the "change in meaning", and referring to your brethren as "ignorant" and state that they "will answer for it at the Judgment Seat of Christ".

Lets stay on topic here, teacher.

 

[Praus]

Beat this guys! I have Adam's personal KJV Bible, signed by God. It's from before Eve was even created. I can't let it go for any less than $7,777,777.

SOLD! I'm paying in Confederate dollars cause, well, we lost that war...

 

[Praus]

EXCELLENT!
Maybe you should use a different phrase to convey your choice of Bible, you do not want to be associated with the Cult of King James Only. Its same as when people call themselves atheist when they are simply agnostic!

I prefer to be called KJV-best.

Or you could call me a TBS-cultist if you like. (Trinitarian Bible Society).

"The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."

http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_reports/66-1.pdf

 

[homwardbound]

I hear a lot of C.S. Lewis quotes myself. Many who quote him, also quote from The Messege
by Eugene Peterson.

Another Quote by C.S. Lewis

If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.

 

[homwardbound]

Agricola, it is a reality. We've discussed this before. The Bible Version Issue is one of the most important issues facing the church today. Because it is solely about the Final Written Authority.

We are accountable for the amount of truth we've been shown. The people who live in America will be more accountable in the Day of Judgment than those who lived in isolated areas like Easter Island (Rapa Nui).

And why? Because the people in America have received more light than those in the remote areas. In America, although at times you have to search a good while, you can still find the real Gospel being preached, whether it be on radio or even television. With internet, mobile, and other technology, people in America can access the preaching of the Gospel almost instantly. A good example of this would be Sermonaudio.com and Youtube.


Also, it is not about preference. What you prefer or what I prefer. The most important question anyone can ask is do we have God's pure words today? And is there absolute truth? And the answer is yes to both. We do have God's pure words and they are the absolute truth.

And let each be convinced in their own mind, if God has received us, then it is God that will get each of us to stand, not any other man, Thanks Chosenbyhim.
Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

 

[homwardbound]

Well Praus, this is the first time that this has been brought to my attention regarding Ezekiel 24:7. And I simply don't have an answer for it. You see, I told you that I did not consider myself an expert on this issue

But I was able to find a written response by Pastor David F. Reagan (the man I quoted in the last post), as this was brought to his attention a while back when a man by the name of Michael Penfold asked him a question (sarcastically) about Ezekiel 24:7:



Mr. Penfold's words will be in green and Mr. Reagan's will be in blue:


Supposed Contradiction in Ezekiel 24:7

A bookshop owner here in England (Michael Penfold of Penfold Book and Bible House) has recently produced a leaflet called "Is the King James Version Perfect?" in which he lists all of the 'errors' in the AV, details the differences between the 1611 and the one we have today and also belittles those of us that hold the AV to be the infallible word of God. A couple of brothers and I are preparing a thorough reply to this leaflet. I believe that if we don't it may do some Bible believers some harm. The Lord helping us we have managed to answer nearly all of the points he raises. However he does make reference to a textual change in Ezekiel 24:7
.

1611 KJV "she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust."​

Current KJV "she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust."


​

Penfold then asks in light of this,

which one is the infallible word of God?


I have a copy of your article entitled The Myth of Early Revisions which has been most helpful. However, with regard to the above, it is obviously a textual change with the reading being opposite. Albeit I note Dr Scrivener records it as being amended in 1613.

Although I have some ideas, I would be grateful if you could please offer some advice on this one as if we can 'nail' this point then we can go back to Mr. Penfold and God willing help him to change his mind.


Now here is David Reagan's answered to Michael Penfold's question:

Thank you for your letter. I am always interested in the latest attacks on the word of God.
Pulling out Ezekiel 24:7
shows me the desperation to which these fellows are driven to attack the King James Bible. It is so obviously a printing error in the 1611 edition that it hardly needs defense. However, I will do so for those who need it.

Any particular copy of the King James Bible does not have to be error-free for the Bible to be the infallibly preserved Bible in the English language. Typographical errors continue to occur in Bibles today even with our superior computer checking and long-term correction of errors. If any particular copy of the Bible is found to have a misprint, we simply correct it in the next printing or in the text of our particular copy of the Bible.

The error in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible in Ezekiel 24:7
is clearly a misprint which was spotted and corrected so early that there can be no honest opposition to this truth. First, let's eliminate the other possibilities.

1. It is not a textual problem--by this I mean that there is no difference in the Hebrew text that would cause them to translate without the "not." The Hebrew Masoretic text used for the translation of the King James Bible has the Hebrew word "lo", meaning "no" or "not". I also checked several modern translations. They all have the negative so there is no problem with a different Hebrew text.
2. It is not a translation problem. There is no reason to believe that the King James translators translated this passage which clearly has a "not" without the negative. In fact, the early correction (1613) proves that this was an error in the first printing.
3. It is not a doctrinal error. One of the interesting things about the printing errors in the King James editions is that they are either so benign that hardly any difference can be discerned in meaning or they are so obvious (as in this case) that they are simple to correct. One early edition had "Printers have persecuted me without cause" in Psalms 119:161. This is not something to lose our religion over. Rather, it is amusing to consider what "printers" have done to the Bible. Correct it in the text (write the correct words in) or in the next printing but don't glee over your superiority to the Bible God has given to us. One other thought: even though the Ezekiel 24:7
4. example is the opposite of what it should be, I would challenge anyone to try and teach any false doctrine from the misprint.

What is it then? It is a printing error. Either the handwritten copy of Ezekiel handed to the printers had the not inadvertently left out or the printers themselves failed to see the not when they laid out the type. I believe that the Lord preserved His word through the translation process, but I do not believe that He kept the hundreds of people involved in the process from making any mistakes. These few and minor errors would be corrected over a period of time.
A simple word like "not" is very easy to leave out when making a copy of something. However, it is also very easy to put back in when the mistake is discovered. This was done in 1613--only 2 years after the original printing! So, for the last 389 years (out of the 391 since the original King James printing), we have had the correct printing in Ezekiel 24:7
--the one that certainly matches the translation decision of the 1611 translators.
Attacking the King James Bible on the basis of such printing errors shows a profound hatred for the Bible used by God for the saving of more souls, the sending of more missionaries, the establishing of more churches, the strengthening of more believers and the stirring of more revivals than any other edition of the Bible in any language for the last 2,000 years--including those in the original tongues. I actually feel sorry for people like that.

David Reagan

Chosenbyhim, I have read amny of your posts and you continue to use others views that you believe they are correct, are you sure they are not your mediators, when there is only one mediator between God and man.
Is not God himself in the power of the Holy Ghost to be our teacher as found in Heb.
Hebrews 8:11 and they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

so who is your teacher? Man or God?

 

[twill]

DO not be fooled into thinking its really is a King James thing, this cult want you to believe that in order to suck you into their belief and ridiculous claim that the King James of 1611 is the only perfect Bible, that all other bibles before it and after it are written by Satan and should be burned leaving the King James 1611 as the only Bible on the planet.

Sad thing is, the King James bible is a good bible, but this cult have based a whole new sect based on it, which they have become obsessed with, even to point of calling genuine Christians evil heretics who will burn in hell for failing to stop using versions like the NIV.

You have been warned.

*coughcoughnudgewink* I said maybe I'll look into it.

 

[twill]

so it took 1611 years roughly for God to perfect his word? That sounds like a load of ****... If its from God shouldnt it have been perfect in the begininng?

You win an Internet.

 

[NiceneCreed]

What he said here is not incorrect. If one iota of Christianity in the Bible were not true, the entire Bible would be false. Man IS totally depraved, and OUR idea of good IS nothing in light of the goodness of Christ. If the Bible were false, yet Christians base their entire view of God on it, even the law would cease to be good. Many churches are exactly what he claims... people who "worship" God in their own way, and therefore do not glorify Him and advertently or inadvertently glorify Satan.

Well said! I recently studied within the past year or so plenary-verbal inspiration theory, and, while there are several other prominent views pertaining to the origin of Scripture and the authority it possesses, there is no doubt in my mind the Bible is the objective, infallible, inspired and inerrant, Word of God. Therefore, logically one must conclude if the Bible comes from God and God is perfect, if the Bible for some reason contains something which is not true, even the smallest "iota" as you pointed out, then this would make the Bible (including the law) in its entirety completely false. So, yes. C.S. Lewis had it right.

Thank you, Mammachickadee. It is always a pleasure reading your posts.


Grace and Peace!