King James Version only?

[Born Crucified]

A person's opinion is never wrong or false, it is there opinion. Everything I wrote is my opinion. My unlearned, ignorant opinion.

While none of this really matters, people are saved by the HOLY SPIRIT with or without a Bible. So, whichever Bible HE uses to enhance or enlighten a saved person, is fine by me. HE can do as HE wishes.

A person cannot be saved apart from the Word of God.

Romans 10:14-17 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

One cannot lead another to Christ without presenting to that person a portion of the Bible. Even if only by memory, the Bible is the tool that must be used to lead another to the Lord.

[Murse32]

A person's opinion is never wrong or false, it is there opinion. Everything I wrote is my opinion. My unlearned, ignorant opinion.

While none of this really matters, people are saved by the HOLY SPIRIT with or without a Bible. So, whichever Bible HE uses to enhance or enlighten a saved person, is fine by me. HE can do as HE wishes.

Not wanting to split hairs with you kross, Im sure I know what you meant by this statement. I just want it to be brought to your attention that we have many "guests" who read these posts. Some guests may be saved, some maybe not. Some may be looking for answers to their questions. We should be very careful how we word our posts though.

It is Jesus who has saved us. Through His sacrifice. Once He ascended into Heaven, God sent us His Spirit to lead us, guide us, teach us, and yes...call us. The Holy Spirit is our seal, our proof to us that God dwells in us and with us and has not left us.

God Bless ya!!

[Born Crucified]

I own a copy.

now I am confused.

do you own one of the 24 hand-written Wycliffe Bibles of 1384

or do you own a copy of the Wycliffe Bible of 1384?

I own a copy

[Murse32]

If it was my opinion that the earth was round, then my opinion would be wrong.

Oh no!! I need a new globe!! Just playing!!!

[Born Crucified]

Everybody knows the earth is either retangular or square in shape.

Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Hmmmm, possibly a diamond or trapezoid.

[Gauntlet]

I own a copy.

now I am confused.

do you own one of the 24 hand-written Wycliffe Bibles of 1384

or do you own a copy of the Wycliffe Bible of 1384?

I wouldn't bother looking for it on eBay.

[Gauntlet]

Everybody knows the earth is either retangular or square in shape.

Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Hmmmm, possibly a diamond or trapezoid.

"4 corners of Earth" = points along hemispherical/equitorial lines of the globe?

"4 corners of Earth" = nonliteral expression?

[Born Crucified]

Everybody knows the earth is either retangular or square in shape.

Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Hmmmm, possibly a diamond or trapezoid.

"4 corners of Earth" = points along hemispherical/equitorial lines of the globe?

"4 corners of Earth" = nonliteral expression?

I was joking, Gauntlet. I do not believe the earth is rectangular, square, diamond or trapezoid shaped.

[Guest Butero]

Born, thank you! We could even take exception to the KJV since the Greek manuscripts ended at the word "record" and their was no verse 8 until later in the 16th century when those words were found penned in the margins of the Latin manuscripts and have crept their way into the translation we have today.

The claim that verse 8 was not there until the 16th Century is a false claim by someone trying to push a false doctrine. In the fourteenth Century, Wycliffe translated from the Greek and Hebrew and his version had verse 8:

1 John 5:7-8 For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon `And thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in erthe, the spirit, water, and blood; and these thre ben oon.

It is false claims such as the one purporting that there was no verse 8 until the 1500's that cause most Bible believers to go on the defensive when it comes to other versions. and paraphrases.

you have a copy of the 14th Century Wycliffe?

I appreciate your involvement in this discussion Born Crucified, because your testimony is of a great help. All along I have been saying that we have a large number of "Bible scholars" making all kinds of unsubstantiated claims that certain verses were not included in the original TR, but were somehow added by the Catholic Church as part of some sinister plot. They do this to discredit the KJV Bible, but I have never been convinced.

That is a great collector's item to have, and extremely valuable to refute false claims like the ones being thrown around here.

[Guest Butero]

I appreciate your involvement in this discussion Born Crucified, because your testimony is of a great help. All along I have been saying that we have a large number of "Bible scholars" making all kinds of unsubstantiated claims that certain verses were not included in the original TR, but were somehow added by the Catholic Church as part of some sinister plot. They do this to discredit the KJV Bible, but I have never been convinced.

That is a great collector's item to have, and extremely valuable to refute false claims like the ones being thrown around here.

all this does is push back the extra words by 200 years, and most experts I have read say that it is not found before 1400, not the 1600 that was stated on this forum.

What you have been told in the past is that the predecessor to the TR does not have the extra words in it.

And there does not need to be a sinister plot, it could just be an overzealous scribe trying to "flesh" out the passage.

What this shows is that these "experts" are making claims that are not true. If they were wrong with this claim, they can be just as wrong with everything else they are saying.