My Old House

[AV1611VET]

In 1959, I used to live in a house that was one of three houses down a long dirt road.

My house number was 35.

Over time, houses were built on that road, and the house number changed to 315.

Today, it is a paved road with a different name, and the house number is 351.

The King James Bible is God's final translation for today.

 

[glenlogie]

In 1959, I used to live in a house that was one of three houses down a long dirt road.

My house number was 35.

Over time, houses were built on that road, and the house number changed to 315.

Today, it is a paved road with a different name, and the house number is 351.

The King James Bible is God's final translation for today.

That is so funny. The first three sentences have zilch to do with your conclusion.

 

[Conan]

The King James Bible is God's final translation for today.

No it is not. It is still accurate enough to be used today. Even prefered. But it contains some mistakes, guaranteeing it is not God's final translation. The mistakes must be fixed.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

In 1959, I used to live in a house that was one of three houses down a long dirt road.

My house number was 35.

Over time, houses were built on that road, and the house number changed to 315.

Today, it is a paved road with a different name, and the house number is 351.

The King James Bible is God's final translation for today.

Utter nonsense. Betcha can't find any scripture to support it either.

 

[AV1611VET]

Utter nonsense. Betcha can't find any scripture to support it either.

[video]

Well ... that was short and sweet.

Where the King James differs from the Byzantine text ... guess what?

 

[glenlogie]

Well ... that was short and sweet.

Where the King James differs from the Byzantine text ... guess what?

You finally admit that all you are doing is guessing, not even caring you cannot provide biblical support.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

Well ... that was short and sweet.

Where the King James differs from the Byzantine text ... guess what?

Flippant responses can get you into difficulty, nevertheless, you have Zero scripture to support your view. That's the hallmark of KJVO's. All bluster and no facts.

And. . . you don't read or write Greek, so you couldn't possibly know about the Byzantine text.

 

[Conan]

Well ... that was short and sweet.

Where the King James differs from the Byzantine text ... guess what?

The Byzantine Text is usually correct!

 

[AV1611VET]

The Byzantine Text is usually correct!

Usually.

 

[logos1560]

Where the King James differs from the Byzantine text ... guess what?

No need to guess since your posts have revealed that you will judge unrighteous judgments.

The KJV could be soundly regarded to be wrong in following readings from the textually-corrupt Latin Vulgate and in following conjectures of Erasmus and Beza found in no known preserved Greek NT manuscripts.

The textual criticism decisions involved in the making of the KJV have not been demonstrated to be based on use of consistent, sound measures/standards applied justly. No positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, just, or scriptural case has been made for the making of exclusive only claims for the 1611 KJV.

 

[AV1611VET]

The KJV could be soundly regarded to be wrong in following readings from the textually-corrupt Latin Vulgate and in following conjectures of Erasmus and Beza found in no known preserved Greek NT manuscripts.

I think the key phrase here is "regarded to be wrong."

The King James can be "regarded to be wrong" with the Bhagavad Gita.

It depends on where your faith lies.

 

[logos1560]

It depends on where your faith lies.

Blind, non-scriptural KJV-only faith in effect lies in the inconsistent textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England critics in 1611.

 

[glenlogie]

I think the key phrase here is "regarded to be wrong."

The King James can be "regarded to be wrong" with the Bhagavad Gita.

It depends on where your faith lies.

Shouldn't your faith be in scripture? Since KJVOs cannot produce scripture to prove their belief, they must put their faith in the ideas of men.

 

[logos1560]

According to a consistent, just application of scriptural truths, the KJV could be soundly regarded to be wrong in following readings from the textually-corrupt Latin Vulgate and in following conjectures of Erasmus and Beza found in no known preserved Greek NT manuscripts.

The use of any unrighteous divers weights, unequal or false balances, inconsistent divers measures, unfair or untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating, judging, trying, or comparing original language manuscript copies of Scripture [likewise printed original language texts and translations] would be wrong according to a consistent, sound application of scriptural truths and principles (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5, Ps. 82:2, Lev. 19:15, Luke 16:10, Matt. 7:2, John 7:24, Lev. 10:10, Ps. 58:1, Deut. 16:18-20, Ps. 19:7-9).