Man, The Cross , and The KJV

I agree; yours is far better than mine, because I don't use it! Clearly, you don't know what the term means, or you wouldn't make such a claim.

Have I said that I am full of doubt? No; I have said nothing of the sort. That's your projection, and it's utterly worthless.

This is why it is important to have the right Bible, Jaybo.

What is in the right hand of God in Rev. 5:1 is not a scroll, but it is a book:

Revelation 5:1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.



Jaybo, what other book could possibly be in the right hand of God in Revelation 5??

Wouldn't it make sense that the Book which is in the right hand of the Father is the very Finished Bible (His word) which Hath returned back unto Him? (see Isaiah 55:11)

It doesn't matter to you that this psalm was written thousands of years before the King James Bible was created? Do you really think that the psalmist was writing about your favorite translation before there was anything like a translation in existence.

Look, you think that the KJV is the only true Bible. That's just your opinion, nothing more.

IMHO you think that because it's the Bible used by your ancestors for about 400 years. There were Bibles before that (including the Septuagint, the Greek translation used during the time of Christ) and there will be new Bible translations as the art/science of translation continues to improve.

Get over it!

Not quite true.
Translations at times don't quite flesh out the full meaning of what was penned in the original text.
For example the word 'blessed' in the Matthew 5 beatitudes is 'makarioj'. There is no real proper English translation for that word, when you find what that word meant back when it was spoken in the day, it's really quite mind blowing.

Oy vey! There were many translations of the Bible -- a lot more than seven! -- prior to any English Bible be produced. Do you really interpret what a psalmist wrote many thousands of years before English was even a language as being applied to a single translation?

Are you aware that in the (lengthy) preface to the Authorized Version the translators acknowledged that the previous translations were "the Word of God"?

Why oh why are you so adamant about a single translation produced centuries after the Bible that Jesus used -- the Septuagint, itself a Greek translation of the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic -- is the true Word of God?

Why can't you just say that the KJV is the translation that you prefer? And that's all it is!

i have some questions about your math.

1. Wycliffe_______________1382-1395
2. Tyndale_______________1525-1526
3. Coverdale_____________1535
4. Matthew's_____________1537
5. Great Bible____________1539
6. Geneva_______________1560
7. Bishop's_______________1568
8. Douay-Rheims_________1582-1610
9. King James____________1611
10. KJV revision 1__________1629
11. KJV revision 2__________1769
12. KJV revision 3__________1860
13. KJV revision 4__________1867
14. KJV revision 5__________1873
15. KJV revision 6__________1967
    

It's best to worship God not a centuries-old translation of ancient writings into a form of English that doesn't exist any more.

@posthuman


Noticed what he said. God allowed it to go through a process of purification. In other words, it wasn’t perfect when first written by those under the Spirit’s influence. What. A. Kook!

The scroll was “written on the inside and the outside” (an idiom for having writing on both sides). Clearly it's a two-sided scroll not a book. How much writing do you think there could be on the outside of a book?

Remember, you're debating a KJV-onlyist. Logic is not his strong point. His response will steer you away from a logical argument to a mystical one that supports his position.

You missed the part where he said the wycliffe and douay bibles aren't authorised so not counted, conveniently.. So it equates to 7 in the 7 times purified.

Also he claimed there's a KJV in heaven. I've never heard such tripe! Either he's trolling us or more deluded than I realised.

I'm fully aware of that. There are others, including yourself, that read and post on this thread. His mystical interpretation is of no value to people who think.

well you know what they say, if the math doesn't add up, ignore stuff until it does

"alternative facts" smh

Clearly he is more deluded than rational.

I mean, if you're happy with reading KJV as your main translation, nothing wrong with that, I refer to it at times too! But the elevation of it that people do is scary.

Wax on, wax off.

These two quotes from the OP show clearly the depth of his delusion and error.

(post #44)

(post #46)

Nothing more need be said; he has said it himself.