King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

[KJV1611]

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?

Again, show me the corruptions.

 

[KJV1611]

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

What improvements are you talking about?

 

[limey410]

Again, show me the corruptions.

What do you consider a corruption? Can I get an example of where another version might be corrupted by that definition? I'm just curious.

 

[SovereignGrace]

What improvements are you talking about?

You stated that the inspired 1611 KJV had typos in it. And that doesn't concern you that ppl, under the inspiration of the Spirit had typos as they wrote under His inspiration?

 

[KJV1611]

You stated that the inspired 1611 KJV had typos in it. And that doesn't concern you that ppl, under the inspiration of the Spirit had typos as they wrote under His inspiration?

I didn't say the printing press employees were inspired.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Again, show me the corruptions.

I am not saying they're corrupted, I am using your logic. You state that newer versions are corrupted. Seeing that the 1769 is a newer version of the 1611, by your definition and logic, the 1769 is corrupted. I am not saying it is, but your logic is.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I didn't say the printing press employees were inspired.

Oy vey!! One thing's for sure. You in this deeeeeeeep!!

 

[KJV1611]

What do you consider a corruption? Can I get an example of where another version might be corrupted by that definition? I'm just curious.

[h=1]Daniel 3:25New American Standard Bible (NASB)[/h][FONT=&quot]25 He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire [a]without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!”[/FONT]

 

[SovereignGrace]

What do you consider a corruption? Can I get an example of where another version might be corrupted by that definition? I'm just curious.

His definition of corrupted is anything that doesn't have KJV in it.

 

[KJV1611]

Oy vey!! One thing's for sure. You in this deeeeeeeep!!

Ok can we move on to the real issues, let's discuss the corruptions from 1611 to present.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Daniel 3:25New American Standard Bible (NASB)

25 He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire [a]without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!”

Daniel was quoting a pagan king.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Ok can we move on to the real issues, let's discuss the corruptions from 1611 to present.

I am not saying the 1611 is corrupted. But I am not the one saying its inspired either.

 

[KJV1611]

His definition of corrupted is anything that doesn't have KJV in it.

Does your Christ have an origin?

Micah 5:2New International Version (NIV)

2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”

 

[KJV1611]

I am not saying the 1611 is corrupted. But I am not the one saying its inspired either.

Well what corner have I backed myself into?

 

[KJV1611]

Daniel was quoting a pagan king.

What did Nebuchadnezzar say? Prove it from the original language.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Does your Christ have an origin?

Micah 5:2New International Version (NIV)

2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”

Could this be talking about His coming as a man in the flesh?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Well what corner have I backed myself into?

You said a revision is an improvement as the 1611 improved upon those mss they were translated from. So, the 1769, by that logic, is an improvement upon that which was inspired, the 1611.

You then stated that newer versions are corrupted.

How can the 1769 be an improvement and corrupted at the same time?

That's the corner you've backed yourself into.

 

[KJV1611]

You said a revision is an improvement as the 1611 improved upon those mss they were translated from. So, the 1769, by that logic, is an improvement upon that which was inspired, the 1611.

You then stated that newer versions are corrupted.

How can the 1769 be an improvement and corrupted at the same time?

That's the corner you've backed yourself into.

There was no revision to the KJV. Updating spelling and correcting typos IS NOT a revision to the text.

 

[KJV1611]

Could this be talking about His coming as a man in the flesh?

His ORIGINS are from ancient times and he didn't have an origin . How is that talking about Christ coming in the flesh... he didn't come in ancient times.

Read it from the KJV.

Micah 5:2King James Version (KJV)

2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

 

[SovereignGrace]

His ORIGINS are from ancient times and he didn't have an origin . How is that talking about Christ coming in the flesh... he didn't come in ancient times.

Read it from the KJV.

Micah 5:2King James Version (KJV)

2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

That word, 'owlam has a myriad of meanings...

Long duration, antiquity, for ever, forever, everlasting, evermore, ancient time, long time, &c.

The translators just used a different English word in other translations than the KJV did.