1611 KJV Bible

May 1, 2011

It is my contention that the TR is the only reliable original manuscripts and only a translation that comes from the TR can be trusted.

Then don't you acknowledge that the original manuscripts are what is perfect (that's another 10 page thread) and ANY translation cannot be perfect? Why is the KJV translation of the TR so much better than any other? It is only and will only ever be a translation, nothing more. Not to be venerated at all.

No translation from one language to another can be 100 percent perfect because there is not always a perfect word in English to express the word in Greek or Hebrew. The only Bibles I know of that come from the TR are the 1611 KJV Bible, The Authorized King James Version Bible, and perhaps, the New King James Version Bible. I like the 1611 Version best. Any Bible not from the TR is worthless to me. I don't trust them.

So please let me clarify, when you state you are KJV only, do you really mean TR only?

I do not believe the 1611 KJV is the best translation from the TR anyway...

Yes, I am TR only, but I do believe the 1611 Edition KJV Bible is the best English translation Bible.

May 1, 2011

I knew it was impossible to change his mind. The only exception was one time I asked: "Hey Dad, do you believe people are getting saved in China?"

"Yes." was his answer.

"Well then, do they have to read the King James Bible?"

He had no answer.

I've asked King James hardliners the same thing and was usually met with similar silence.

Let us end the silence now Man. People get saved all over the globe that don't have a Bible.

That pretty much makes this King James issue moot.

Not really. You can get saved never having a Bible, but you need an accurate Bible to learn doctrine. If you don't care anything about moving past the plan of salvation, fine. If not, it matters.

nChrist · May 1, 2011

I knew it was impossible to change his mind. The only exception was one time I asked: "Hey Dad, do you believe people are getting saved in China?"

"Yes." was his answer.

"Well then, do they have to read the King James Bible?"

He had no answer.

I've asked King James hardliners the same thing and was usually met with similar silence.

Let us end the silence now Man. People get saved all over the globe that don't have a Bible. They simply have to know the plan of salvation to get saved. This is a question of accuracy of translation. It is my contention that the TR is the only reliable original manuscripts and only a translation that comes from the TR can be trusted. The TR can be translated into any language. As a matter of fact, I would recommend that if there is no Chinese translation from the TR, it would be better to create one straight from the KJV Bible than to go to the corrupt manuscripts put used by modern English translations. That wasn't even a challenging question. I can't imagine why nobody answered it?

To Savedbygrace1981, in my area there are several churches that are hard line KJV only, mostly Independent Baptists. I am surprised your Father couldn't find one?

http://www.biblicist.org/bible/receptus.shtml

You might find it interesting to learn some facts about the Textus Receptus and its relation to the KJV. The mixture of sources for the KJV are quite interesting, but I've said all I have to say on this matter with one exception: the position of KJV onlyists is impossible to defend, and bashing other excellent translations is a disservice to God.

May 1, 2011

I knew it was impossible to change his mind. The only exception was one time I asked: "Hey Dad, do you believe people are getting saved in China?"

"Yes." was his answer.

"Well then, do they have to read the King James Bible?"

He had no answer.

I've asked King James hardliners the same thing and was usually met with similar silence.

Let us end the silence now Man. People get saved all over the globe that don't have a Bible. They simply have to know the plan of salvation to get saved. This is a question of accuracy of translation. It is my contention that the TR is the only reliable original manuscripts and only a translation that comes from the TR can be trusted. The TR can be translated into any language. As a matter of fact, I would recommend that if there is no Chinese translation from the TR, it would be better to create one straight from the KJV Bible than to go to the corrupt manuscripts put used by modern English translations. That wasn't even a challenging question. I can't imagine why nobody answered it?

To Savedbygrace1981, in my area there are several churches that are hard line KJV only, mostly Independent Baptists. I am surprised your Father couldn't find one?

http://www.biblicist.org/bible/receptus.shtml

You might find it interesting to learn some facts about the Textus Receptus and its relation to the KJV. The mixture of sources for the KJV are quite interesting, but I've said all I have to say on this matter with one exception: the position of KJV onlyists is impossible to defend, and bashing other excellent translations is a disservice to God.

I doubt you could say anything I haven't heard? Impossible to defend? Try me. I am not even going to make that boast against those on your side of the isle. You will certainly give a defense. Since you have said all you are going to on the matter, I will end our conversation with this. Those that bash KJV only people and defend new translations do a disservice to God and serve the devil well, by helping promote corruption.

By the way, your source is a feeble attempt by those promoting corrupt translations to discredit the KJV Bible. I don't accept anything they have to say. I have my own sources that will completely contradict everything they have to say. If you want to go source for source we can do that, but it will be nothing more than arguing over who is right? My sources claim, and I trust them over anything yours says, that the TR was the original manuscripts used by the early church. I believe that to be the case, and there is nothing you can present that will make me change my mind. Unless you were there, you have to rely on the opinion of others, as I do. It comes down to who do you trust?

I got into a soap box debate with RunningGator over this matter. If you want to see just how hard it is going to be to win an argument with me over this topic, feel free to read. You will show me why certain words are mistakes, and I will defend them. You will present sources telling me why new translations are more reliable. I will use sources to show they are corrupt. You can't win, because it will be the word of one historian against another.