You have no authoritative source approved by God to claim the Bible is flawed.
Why I support the KJV Bible
- Thread starter marke
- Start date
God promised to preserve His word and of course He intended to use humans to do it.
Which King James Bible is "the Bible" (capital B), Marke?
Right Divider has declared that we can no longer discuss this subject on this thread.
Right Divider
Body part
Wrong user... it was JudgeRightly (who is an administrator here).
Right Divider
Body part
Comments have been moved from the other thread.
You say this as if one "authoritative" witness can establish a matter...
The Bible says it cannot.
I have logic, reason, and the internal consistency of the Bible that tells me that the KJV, let alone all the other Bibles in the world, contains errors.
All you have is your opinion that it does not.
The verse you quoted in the other thread was not talking about the Bible, marke.
Repeating yourself won't make your claims any less false.
You need to pay attention to whom you're responding to.
I am @JudgeRightly. I am not @Right Divider.
I am the one who stated that the discussion needed to be moved to a new thread, not RD, because it was getting too far off topic.
You can now discuss it on this one. Please answer @Clete's question
The KJB is not "the Bible" so much as it is the best English translation of God's preserved infallible word.
Sorry. I was confused, which is common at my age.
As if you had anything of substance to contribute anyway!
So says you. You haven't the slightest idea what you're even talking about.
Read this and learn something! I dare you!
Battle Royale XIV
I have already responded to that debate. I do not subscribe to the view that the KJV is some sort of inspired replacement Bible that is more inspired than all versions and manuscripts from before the KJV. I believe God preserved His NT word in what we generally refer to as the Textus Receptus or Majority Text and that the KJV is the most accurate translation of that preserved NT word in the English language.
I agree that many KJVO arguments are flawed. The foundation of the Bible versions debate is whether or not God preserved His word throughout history and whether or not we have a reliable Bible translation today that we can say accurately represents the irrefutable truth of God's word. If we do not have an accurate Bible today then what we do have is every man for himself when it comes to deciding what to believe or not to believe.
Which that debate PROVES to not be the case!
And even if it were the case, the fact that the KJV is written in a version of the English language that is four centuries old is sufficient, by itself, to make at least the New King James a superior English translation (i.e. there are likely several others that are just as good) because English is not like Latin, where the language is no longer in common use and so words do not change in their usage and in meaning. On the contrary, English is the most used language on the planet! As such, it is an evolving language that has changed in very substantive ways since the 16th and early 17th century. Indeed, the fact that every modern translation is not superior to the KJV only goes to demonstrate just how poor many modern translations are. But, anyone who knows enough about the issue to know what the Texus Receptus is, has no excuse to use a more modern translation like the New King James, if one is available to him.
The New King James isn't even all that new any more! Of course, it is in comparison to the KJV, but just think about how much our language has changed since 1982 when the NKJV was first published. By the time its half a century old, (less than ten years from now) it'll be time to revise it again. In fact, its probably passed time already, given the speed at which the international language of English evolves.
By the way, congratulations on writing three whole sentences in a row! Wow!
It was not the archaic language of the KJV that was the primary motivation for Westcott to write a new Greek text, but money, desiring to sell his own perverted Greek text based on the corrupted Sinaiticus text, as well as his aversion to the Textus Receptus.
The NKJV was unduly influenced by Westcott's corrupted Greek text whether it was intended to be or not.
Not true and even if it were, it would not to be to any extent that begins to overcome the fact that the English language has changed to a degree that makes the KJV completely outdated and obsolete.
A point, by the way, that you completely ignored and will continue to ignore because if there is anyone on this site that is not open to correction, instruction, edification, or encouragement", as you recently accused me of, it's you.
You have consistently proven yourself to be a total waste of time.
What is not true? Westcott had a high disregard for the Textus Receptus and, consequently, rewrote the Greek Text to conform to errors in the Sinaiticus. Is that not significant?