The Best Way To BURN A Catholic Bible PerVersion!

[Tim]

Biblebeliever, do you only use a Cambridge Edition KJV?

Tim, I read and study from two Local Church Bible Publishers' Editions of the King James Bible. Both King James Bibles are the 1611 Edition. One of them has no notes or commentary in it, but it does contain the Preface to the King James Version 1611: "The Translators To The Reader."

And the second King James Bible that I have has the 1917 C.I. Scofield notes with center coloumn references.

When you say 1611 edition, are you reading from text like this?

In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse. And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.

 

[prophet]

I would've jumped in here, but I saw a link that said "chick", and realized that all is lost.

Anishinaabe

 

[Tim]

I would've jumped in here, but I saw a link that said "chick", and realized that all is lost.

Anishinaabe

Did someone say "chick" ???????

 

[prophet]

I would've jumped in here, but I saw a link that said "chick", and realized that all is lost.

Anishinaabe

Did someone say "chick" ???????

This is much more appealing than anything put out by Jack chick.

Anishinaabe

 

[bgwilkinson]

Biblebeliever, do you only use a Cambridge Edition KJV?

Tim, I read and study from two Local Church Bible Publishers' Editions of the King James Bible. Both King James Bibles are the 1611 Edition. One of them has no notes or commentary in it, but it does contain the Preface to the King James Version 1611: "The Translators To The Reader."

And the second King James Bible that I have has the 1917 C.I. Scofield notes with center coloumn references.

BB, I checked the Local Church Bible Publishers web site and found this KJV1611 reproduction.

http://www.localchurchbiblepublishers.com/wp-content/uploads/95-1611ReplicaOpen.jpg

Is this the 1611 version that you have? Does it have the text critical notes and alternate readings in it.

The alternate readings as Miles Smith explained were put there when the translators could not determine

which of two was the correct reading. They put one in the text and the other in the margin.

You must have all of the translators alternate readings to have a complete KJV1611 translation.

See translators to the reader to verify this.

I could not tell if this edition had all of the content of the original KJV1611 edition.

Is it unabridged?

Is it complete?

Here is the KJV1611 Bible I recommend if you want the original unmutilated, uncorrected, unrevised, pure

KJV1611 Bible just as Smith and Bilson did the final revisions on it.



Here is the KJV1611 edition I recommend for those who want the real thing.

If you are a Bible thumper and use this Bible be warned it could destroy your pulpit when you slam it down

hard on your pulpit. It weighs in at 30lbs. 

http://greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611.html


This  Bible is just plan beautiful. The soft red leather cover is just awesome to behold.

The type face is large and easy to read.

This is what the translators labored over just as it was printed by Robert Barker in 1611.

Two types of covers are available. The real soft red leather for about $1,000.00 and an imitation leather cover

for about $350.00. The contents are exactly identical. I have both. If you have the extra $$$ get the real red

leather cover. Any real lover of the KJV1611 should have one of these for sure.

The real thing will dispel the myths and lies that circulate on the internet about the KJV1611 Bible.


Great pics of the real deal.

https://www.icloud.com/iphoto/projects/#1;CAEQARoQJ31tVqXuOJjzASJs8QD8gg;52C05053-5E5D-4223-B2F1-CC0170C14DD0


Disclaimer:  I am not in any way affiliated with or employed by GreatSite.com I just love the work they do.


You can view 22 different historic original Bibles here:

http://www.bibles-online.net/

 

[Ransom]

Yes they do.

[bibleburner]No they dont![/bibleburner]

 

[Biblebeliever]

You must show evidence that the modern versions are Vatican versions.

You have not shown that evidence. The burden of proof is on you BB.

New Versions Are Vatican Versions Part 1 of 3


Proof: Modern Translations are Catholic by Will Kinney


Here is the link to the article "Undeniable Proof
the ESV, NIV, NASBs are the new Catholic Vatican Versions

http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcath...
In this article you will see this quote:

I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th
edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the
UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings
and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV,
NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St.
Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book
and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the
Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about
how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the
Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the
same basic text.

In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words: "The text
shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible
Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the
United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new
translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This
marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional
relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a
working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a
stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of
the New Testament."

There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this
text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS
and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it
already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible
words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".

And here is the link to "Are King James Bible believers "a cult" or
"idolaters"?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbacult...

Thanks for all your help on these. I really appreciate it.

"Accepted in the Beloved and clothed in His righteousness"

Will Kinney

BB said, "The modern versions are perversions because they come from two corrupt Greek texts (Siniaticus

and Vaticanus)." You must provide evidence that using Siniaticus or Vaticanus would make a version a

Vatican version. You did not. Your Assertion is denied. You have provided no evidenced whatsoever.

The Vaticanus text is a Catholic and papal text. It is kept by the Vatican. It was found in the Vatican Libraury in 1481. This is not rocket science Wilkinson.


The Sinaiticus text is just another Vatican text, which was discovered in 1844 in St. Catherine's Monastery by Constantine Tischendorf.


To see the utter corruption of these two Vatican texts, click on each of the two following links given below:


http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/codex_vaticanus.html/


http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/codex_sinaiticus.html/

BB said, "But there is one Bible that is the perfect, pure, and inerrant word of God. And that is the Authorized

King James Bible." You have once again made a completely unsubstantiated assertion. You must show that

what you have claimed is a fact. You have not provided any evidence to support your claim. Claim denied.

The King James Bible is the inerrant word of God. It is already a fact. There has not been one proven error ever found in the King James Holy Bible.

BB said, "The Authorized Version come from the right Hebrew and Greek texts, it is the text of the English

Reformation". To substantiate this unsupported claim you will need to prove which Hebrew and Greek texts

are the right ones. You will need to explain how you are able to make that determination.

The Masoretic readings which the King James Bible is based on are inerrant. The King James Bible is based upon the Ben Chayyim text except in the following two passages: Joshua 21:36-37 and Nehemiah 7:68. Those are the only two exceptions.


The general Greek texts which the King James Bible is based mainly on are the following three: Erasmus', Beza, and Stephanus.

BB said, "and it can be traced all the way back to Antioch."  You will need show how the Hebrew text that you

consider right can be traced back to Antioch. You will also need to show how the Greek text you consider right

can be traced back to Antioch. By Antioch do you mean the Greek speaking Church that was located there in

the first few centuries?

http://www.bereanresearchinstitute.com/02_Bible_Versions/BV.0003_Antioch_and_Alexandria.html

 

[Biblebeliever]

BB said, "and it can be traced all the way back to Antioch."  You will need show how the Hebrew text that you

consider right can be traced back to Antioch. You will also need to show how the Greek text you consider right

can be traced back to Antioch.

 

[Biblebeliever]

When you say 1611 edition, are you reading from text like this?

In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse. And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.

Tim, I do not have the 1611 facsimile.

The King James Bibles that I study from both have the texts that are conformable to the Edition of 1611.

 

[bgwilkinson]

You must show evidence that the modern versions are Vatican versions.

You have not shown that evidence. The burden of proof is on you BB.

New Versions Are Vatican Versions Part 1 of 3


Proof: Modern Translations are Catholic by Will Kinney


Here is the link to the article "Undeniable Proof
the ESV, NIV, NASBs are the new Catholic Vatican Versions

http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcath...
In this article you will see this quote:

I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th
edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the
UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings
and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV,
NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St.
Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book
and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the
Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about
how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the
Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the
same basic text.

In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words: "The text
shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible
Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the
United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new
translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This
marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional
relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a
working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a
stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of
the New Testament."

There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this
text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS
and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it
already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible
words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".

And here is the link to "Are King James Bible believers "a cult" or
"idolaters"?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbacult...

Thanks for all your help on these. I really appreciate it.

"Accepted in the Beloved and clothed in His righteousness"

Will Kinney

BB said, "The modern versions are perversions because they come from two corrupt Greek texts (Siniaticus

and Vaticanus)." You must provide evidence that using Siniaticus or Vaticanus would make a version a

Vatican version. You did not. Your Assertion is denied. You have provided no evidenced whatsoever.

The Vaticanus text is a Catholic and papal text. It is kept by the Vatican. It was found in the Vatican Libraury in 1481. This is not rocket science Wilkinson.


The Sinaiticus text is just another Vatican text, which was discovered in 1844 in St. Catherine's Monastery by Constantine Tischendorf.


To see the utter corruption of these two Vatican texts, click on each of the two following links given below:


http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/codex_vaticanus.html/


http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/codex_sinaiticus.html/

BB said, "But there is one Bible that is the perfect, pure, and inerrant word of God. And that is the Authorized

King James Bible." You have once again made a completely unsubstantiated assertion. You must show that

what you have claimed is a fact. You have not provided any evidence to support your claim. Claim denied.

The King James Bible is the inerrant word of God. It is already a fact. There has not been one proven error ever found in the King James Holy Bible.

BB said, "The Authorized Version come from the right Hebrew and Greek texts, it is the text of the English

Reformation". To substantiate this unsupported claim you will need to prove which Hebrew and Greek texts

are the right ones. You will need to explain how you are able to make that determination.

The Masoretic readings which the King James Bible is based on are inerrant. The King James Bible is based upon the Ben Chayyim text except in the following two passages: Joshua 21:36-37 and Nehemiah 7:68. Those are the only two exceptions.


The general Greek texts which the King James Bible is based mainly on are the following three: Erasmus', Beza, and Stephanus.

BB said, "and it can be traced all the way back to Antioch."  You will need show how the Hebrew text that you

consider right can be traced back to Antioch. You will also need to show how the Greek text you consider right

can be traced back to Antioch. By Antioch do you mean the Greek speaking Church that was located there in

the first few centuries?

http://www.bereanresearchinstitute.com/02_Bible_Versions/BV.0003_Antioch_and_Alexandria.html

BB

Mr. Will Kinney is completely unreliable and makes anything you use him to prove equally unreliable.

You have provided no unbiased independent proof whatsoever.

Your assertions are doubly denied.

 

[bgwilkinson]

BB said, "and it can be traced all the way back to Antioch."  You will need show how the Hebrew text that you

consider right can be traced back to Antioch. You will also need to show how the Greek text you consider right

can be traced back to Antioch.

BB

When I said proof I meant original sources not biased 3rd and 4th hand hearsay.

Mr. Moorman's chart is fanciful wishful thinking.

It is a fine example of starting with a conclusion and making up your own facts to support your conclusion.

The 22 viewable Bibles at this URL are what I consider reliable original sources.

http://www.bibles-online.net/

This chart has no bearing whatsoever on text critical matters as to be laughable.

Doubly denied.

 

[bgwilkinson]

When you say 1611 edition, are you reading from text like this?

In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse. And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.

Tim, I do not have the 1611 facsimile.

The King James Bibles that I study from both have the texts that are conformable to the Edition of 1611.

BB

Here is how to get beautiful high resolution photographs of an original 1st edition KJV1611 Bible.

You do need access to the internet and a computer. I assume you have both.

Here is the URL:

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

I would seriously doubt that you have or use an original KJV1611 or facsimile of one.

I have now showed you how you can access photos of a real authentic unmutilated KJV1611.

Not one of the watered down, smoothed, revised, corrected and mutilated Bibles I saw on the

Local Church Bible Publishers web site.

I suspect, but cannot prove that the KJV1611 that they sell as the real thing is instead one that has many of

the books removed. Thus it would be highly mutilated and not close to an original, but different in thousands

of ways.

Remember "that which is different is not the same".


BB said:
"The King James Bibles that I study from both have the texts that are conformable to the Edition of 1611."

Unless the Bible you use has all the material present in the 1st edition KJV1611 it is not conformable to the

Edition of 1611.

Does your Bible have the material in the link below that is in a genuine authentic unmutilated 1st Edition

KJV 1611?

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1052

 

[Tim]

When you say 1611 edition, are you reading from text like this?

In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse. And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.

Tim, I do not have the 1611 facsimile.

The King James Bibles that I study from both have the texts that are conformable to the Edition of 1611.

I don't want to be disrespectful to your conviction - but, let me ask, would you honestly expect a high school graduate of 2014 to use the 1611 KJV? I can understand a more updated 1769 text of the KJV, but the 1611 original is asking much I would say. If you would prefer a young believer, just graduated high school, to use the 1611 text, I beg to ask - why? It is almost another language for such a person.

 

[T-Bone]

I would've jumped in here, but I saw a link that said "chick", and realized that all is lost.

Anishinaabe

Exactly...once Chick is used as a "legitimate" source all intelligent discussion has stopped!

 

[T-Bone]

And if Chick is not enough to kill a serious discussion, he had to cut & paste Will Kinney....oh the humanity of the whole thing!;

 

[Mathew Ward]

And if Chick is not enough to kill a serious discussion, he had to cut & paste Will Kinney....oh the humanity of the whole thing!;

Next he will quote Avery or Evans...

 

[Biblebeliever]

Exactly...once Chick is used as a "legitimate" source all intelligent discussion has stopped!

Chick Publications is a legitimate source.


Chick Publications does a lot of good. They expose the wicked and satanic Roman Catholic church, the Vatican, and the Jesuits for who they really are.


A lot of today's "Christian" bookstores won't even sell a quarter of the good material that Chick Publications offers.


Most of the Christian bookstores today are apostate and are friendly with the Roman Catholic church, which is the MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH (See Revelation 17:5).


I strongly recommend Chick Publications to anyone.


If you want the whole truth, then simply visit their website.

 

[Ransom]

Most of the Christian bookstores today are apostate and are friendly with the Roman Catholic church, which is the MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH (See Revelation 17:

You started this thread by commending the best way to burn the Holy Scriptures. Who cares about your SUPPOSED opinion of the Mother of Harlots? You're turning tricks with her already.

I strongly recommend Chick Publications to anyone.

Why, of course you do! Having started as a Ruckman droid, and recommending Bible burning like a good Catholic Nazi, why start recommending sane materials this late in the game?

You gotta laugh.

 

[prophet]

Always leave a chick comic tract instead of money,  as a tip to your waiter.

Anishinaabe

 

[logos1560]

Chick Publications is a legitimate source.


If you want the whole truth, then simply visit their website.

Whatever good may be in some of their publications does not excuse or justify the incorrect claims in their KJV-only books.

They do not present "the whole truth" on the Bible translation issue.

I have David W. Daniels' book Answers to your Bible Version Questions printed by Chick Publications, have read it, and it has does not present "the whole truth."