| Re: |
However you set that file up, I don't seem to be able to bring it up...maybe you could send it in private messge! DGL
| 2010/7/13 14:00|
| 2010/7/13 14:20||Profile|
| Re: |
I tried it! As is usually the case with these long entries like that, I will get at least one charcter wrong! I will try it again in the AM when my eyes are fresher. DGL
| 2010/7/13 14:48|
| Re: |
technically the KJV is Crown Property but I'm sure her majesty won't quibble. Here is an image of the 1611 version for you...
Thanks for this, I like the language!
I can just hear those folk in 1611 saying "This new translation dedicated to King James is a heresy, we only use Wycliffe's translation!" :)
BTW - Didn't the Apostles and Jesus quote from the Septuagint (greek translation of OT), which has varations from the original Hebrew. I bet there were folk back then who got upset about the Septuagint. Probably they were the ones who strain out gnats and swallowed camels!
| 2010/7/13 15:13||Profile|
| Re: |
Reply to Philologos; I would be interested in your thoughts on Matthew 13:1-29 and verse 30 (The tares, First,) also the "zinger" where everyone uses Matthew Chapter 13 to teach that you can lose your salvation. I notice in the context that one of the 4 had "no root," Question; Do you know any plant that can survive without roots? Also if you read the last page of the Bible, you will see in Rev.22:16(b); "I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright and Morning Star." Unlike the Modern Versions in Isa.14:12, where they make Lucifer "the morning star." C.I. Scofield says; The Wheat goes first, the KJV1611 text says the Tares get "taken" and bound "first." All this is quite a lot for the average Christian ...because it says in Matt.24:40; "one is "taken" and the other left." I would be interested in your thoughts. Was that why you directed me to those Footnotes? DGL
| 2010/7/13 16:24|
| Re: |
Hey, no offense intended, sir. The only reason I asked was because many of the KJV only crowd seem to herald Mr. Ruckman as their champion proponent of the KJV movement. And I don't have a preset judgement against anyone who has a solid belief in the Word of God (that is unless that person believes that the KJV 1611 is the only pure version of the Bible in existence today). You must forgive me if I offended you in some way. I had only found it quite.... intriguing..... that your first post on sermonindex was in answer to a question that no one here asked, in favor of a certain translation that some have said is the ONLY Word of God. That's all.
| 2010/7/13 19:29||Profile|
| Re: |
Reply to Everestosama; I need to explain why I put up that thread. i am a novice on the web! To make it worse, if the print on a site is small I have a hard time reading it. Before I logged in yesterday (New to this site) I saw a remark by a guy about the King James Bible asking why anyone would still use it. By the time I navigated around and registered I had no idea how to find the comment or even what Forum it was on. In order to find my way back to a site I have to hit "favorite" and save it until I can feel acquainted enough with it to find the site when I want to! To show you how much trouble I have with my eyes... I think that I misspelled KJV1611 on the thread. It says KJV161 and I don't know if I spelled it that way or the Site Manager entered it that way. I didn't notice it for a day and a half. Anyway I am not mad at you, in life we all want to strongly defend our position and I am as vigorous with mine as I hope that you are with yours...The Lord hates lukewarm Christians. I am one who lost a lot of things in my life, my Father disappeared when I was less than a year old and left my Mother with 3 boys to raise before WW2. That KJV 1611 Bible that I have is one of the few possessions that I still have left, I treasure it. On this site I gave that account of my love of the word of God...I have my children,grandchildren and their wifes/spouses birthdays and wedding anniversaries written in the middle page between the OT and the NT. So you can see that I treasure it and the words in it As far as I am concerned it is good between us and I will enjoy hearing what God is doing in your life. At least I know that He has given you a spirit of "reconciliation." (2 Cor.5:17-21) Doug
| 2010/7/13 21:36|
| Re: |
Personally, I still read kjv, but still refer to several other translations all the time.
However, I am beginning to like the Nasb nearly as much as the kjv. I nearly read it just as much!
Why i commented on this silly topic i am not for sure. ;)
God bless you all.
| 2010/7/13 23:31||Profile|
| Re: |
Hey, sorry if I came off as inquisitive or sharp, sir. I just usually see people joining fairly often who have only the intention to teach the members here new doctrine or to share their own little personal "gems" of revelation with us, but have little or no interest in actual fellowship, or the sharpening of one another. They'll make their new posts and try to show us some new or secret light, or attempt to say something that sounds profound, only to be completely spiritually incompatible and dry.
I now understand where you're coming from, so please forgive my prior lack of understanding regarding your position. You indeed do have a very valuable Bible, and I'm glad that it has meant so much to you, and has been a treasure for you throughout your walk. I'm glad that you love the Word of God. So thank you for your post, and once again, please forgive my former skepticism.
| 2010/7/14 1:15||Profile|
| Re: |
I agree with brother Ron (Philologos) that you probably are using a version OTHER THAN the "original" 1611 edition. The "original" KJV contained the books of the Apocrypha (in fact, they were the first portion to be completed and published) as well as many errors, which led to the subsequent revisions that culminated in the 1769 (or later) editions that are commonly used today for the "Authorized Version."
In addition, as Ron pointed out, the version is still held by the Crown of the United Kingdom and is only "authorized" to be published by a select group of publishers in the UK. Those of us outside of the UK are not worried, because this ownership exceeds the copyright protection recognized by US law. Thus, we are free to publish it without fear of legal action, even if it is still technically owned by the Crown.
You wrote: "
So I would consider it an act of Christian charity if you would not lump me in with others, because you have a preset judgemental attitude toward anyone who has a "solid" belief' in the word of God!
I can't speak for this brother. I suppose that he might be concerned because of the history of certain brothers or sisters who have joined this forum and immediately proclaimed their view that the KJV is the ONLY inspired version or translation of the Word of God. Such brethren have been somewhat divisive and have even gone so far as to proclaim that those of us who aren't KJV-exclusive are "believing a lie." Even your statement above seems to skirt such an opinion...because the brother you were speaking to did not demonstrate a "judgmental attitude toward anyone who has a 'solid' belief in the word of God.'" I didn't really read that in his post at all.
Personally, I use the KJV, NIV and NASB as my primary sources of Scripture. I view these as faithful translations from the sources that each group of translators used. I tend to use the KJV and NIV the most...simply because of the plethora of study materials available.
Anyway, I wanted to clear that up just a bit. Welcome to the forum! I hope that you will be blessed, challenged and encouraged by the material that is contained here!
| 2010/7/14 1:57||Profile|