The KJV is a Roman Catholic Bible with respect to the Word Church.

[bgwilkinson]

The KJV is a Roman Catholic Bible with respect to the Word Church.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Mt. 16:18


1380 Wiclif  I schal bilde my chirche

1534 Tyndale  I wyll bylde my congregacion

1535 Coverdale  wil I builde my cogregacion

1537 Matthew  I wil bylde my congregacion

1539  Cranmer  I wil bylde my congregacion

1541 Great  I wyll buylde my congregacyon

1549 Matthew-Tyndale  I wyl byld my congregacion

1551 Taverner  I wil build my congregacion

1552 Jugge  I wyll buylde my congregation

1557 Geneva NT I wil builde my congregation  Printed by Conrad Badius in Geneva

1568 Bishops  I wyll buylde my congregation  Printed by Richard Jugge in London

1582 Rheims  will I build my church  printed by John Fogny in Rheims, France

1583  Geneva  NT  I wil build my Church  Printed by Christopher Barker in London

1572 Bishop's  I will builde my congregation  (or church in margin) Fulke diglot 1589

1611 Authorized  I will build my Church      A High Church Bible, Roman Catholic Bible

James I and Richard Bancroft required ...”certain old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz., the church not to be translated congregation, etc”.  It will be noted that the word church did not appear in an official church of England Bible until the KJV1611 was printed. The translation of congregation was used instead, started by Tyndale. Wyclif in 1380 alone used chirche. The Roman Catholic Rheims 1582 started using church and Protestant Geneva 1583 printed in London by Christopher Barker Printer to the Queen followed their lead.

Link to Fulke diglot:
https://archive.org/details/FulkeNewTestamentConfutation1589

Link to pre 1611 Bibles
http://www.bibles-online.net/

 

[bibleprotector]

The KJB is catholic, but not Roman Catholic. It is, after all, the final form of Scripture which is exactly correct for the whole world.

 

[subllibrm]

The KJB is catholic, but not Roman Catholic. It is, after all, the final form of Scripture which is exactly correct for the whole world.

Sayeth those Mandarin speaking Christians in China!  :

Sir, you have been soundly beaten down with your own idol. Deal with it.

 

[bibleprotector]

The KJB is catholic, but not Roman Catholic. It is, after all, the final form of Scripture which is exactly correct for the whole world.

Sayeth those Mandarin speaking Christians in China!  :

Sir, you have been soundly beaten down with your own idol. Deal with it.

When I said "for the whole world" that was future tense, as it is clear that today there are Christians who do not know English.

 

[subllibrm]

The KJB is catholic, but not Roman Catholic. It is, after all, the final form of Scripture which is exactly correct for the whole world.

Sayeth those Mandarin speaking Christians in China!  :

Sir, you have been soundly beaten down with your own idol. Deal with it.

When I said "for the whole world" that was future tense, as it is clear that today there are Christians who do not know English.

But someday they all will?

Should the Lord tarry will the KJV always be "exactly correct" for the whole world?

Future tense all the way into eternal heaven?

Future tense in that the "one world government" will force all people to learn the King's English?

You make less sense every time you post.

 

[bgwilkinson]

The layers of the onion are slowly peeling away.

 

[bibleprotector]

But someday they all will?

The providence of God is outworking the spread of English.

Should the Lord tarry will the KJV always be "exactly correct" for the whole world?

The Lord is coming at a set time, so there is no "if the Lord tarry" about it: certain things must be fulfilled before His return. And yes, the KJB is to be considered exactly correct into the Millennium.

Future tense all the way into eternal heaven?

In the Millennium.

Future tense in that the "one world government" will force all people to learn the King's English?

Jesus' Millennial "one world government" is going to be a rod of iron: but God's providence is about the knowledge of truth, not your misguided use of the word "force" and you maligning of Biblical English (which indeed is for the purposes of the King Jesus).

You make less sense every time you post.

Probably because your modernism makes you dull of hearing.

 

[FSSL]

My so-called modernist ears hear "another gospel" when I read that God's plan is to revive an archaic language.

"Maligning 'Biblical English'"? It is not 'biblical' but even so... a language is not a person and cannot be maligned. Last time I read the Bible, I thought His plan revolves around Him... NOT an object. But then again... it must be my "modernism."

 

[Vince Massi]

The KJB is catholic, but not Roman Catholic. It is, after all, the final form of Scripture which is exactly correct for the whole world.

Which KJV is the final form of Scripture?

 

[bibleprotector]

The KJB is catholic, but not Roman Catholic. It is, after all, the final form of Scripture which is exactly correct for the whole world.

Which KJV is the final form of Scripture?

Your question is flawed. Scripture itself does not have a final form as though it has changed since inspiration. Since the KJB is an accurate text and translation, it is of course the final form of the representation of Scripture, but it hasn't actually changed the Scripture since inspiration. The KJB is one single version and translation so the word "which" does not fit with that.

 

[Vince Massi]

No, Bible Protector, my question is not flawed. There are approximately 8,000 slightly different KJVs.

Which one is the final inspiration?

 

[bibleprotector]

No, Bible Protector, my question is not flawed. There are approximately 8,000 slightly different KJVs.

Yes, some have blue covers, some have black covers, some are big, some are small.

Which one is the final inspiration?

Your question is further flawed since the inspiration of Scripture finished with the Apostle John.

 

[FSSL]

Dishonest hack.

You gotta love how he unintentionally undermines his own purification scheme.

 

[Vince Massi]

BibleProtector, I'm not trying to pick on you, and I appreciate the courteous Christian manner in which you conduct yourself.

The first KJV accidentally referred to Ruth as "he." The second KJV corrected that error.

There were two editions of the original 1611 KJV. Often, the same print shops printed the same pages, and sometimes they didn't. Both editions were "folio," meaning that they were printed on heavy paper, one side only, and not bound into a book. The British Museum managed to collect a complete 1611 KJV from purchases and donations, but cannot tell which edition the different pages come from.

The Royal College of Scotland also collected a complete 1611 KJV, and the two slightly contradict each other.

Which one is free from error, and how did you reach that conclusion?

 

[FSSL]

I appreciate the courteous Christian manner in which you conduct yourself.

You modernist full of the leaven of infidelity. BP spoke... now move along with your big blue Bible.

Lol!!!

All of those years under IFB tyrrany have caused you to mistake a dishonest shove off for courteous Christian manners.

 

[Vince Massi]

" And yes, the KJB is to be considered exactly correct into the Millennium."



Which KJV? And where does the Bible make this statement?

 

[bibleprotector]

BibleProtector, I'm not trying to pick on you, and I appreciate the courteous Christian manner in which you conduct yourself.

Thank you.

The first KJV accidentally referred to Ruth as "he." The second KJV corrected that error.

There is only one King James Version, so when you say "second KJV", you are mistaken. The version and translation did not change, regardless of the fact that a printer may have made a mistake or that an editor/copyeditor may have corrected such a typographical error.

There were two editions of the original 1611 KJV. Often, the same print shops printed the same pages, and sometimes they didn't. Both editions were "folio," meaning that they were printed on heavy paper, one side only, and not bound into a book. The British Museum managed to collect a complete 1611 KJV from purchases and donations, but cannot tell which edition the different pages come from.

The point is that printers' errors or publishers' corrections on the typographical level do not count as either textual (reading) or translational changes.

The Royal College of Scotland also collected a complete 1611 KJV, and the two slightly contradict each other.

Which one is free from error, and how did you reach that conclusion?

The King James Bible, that is, the version and translation, were free from error in both editions because both editions have the same readings and the same translation.

However, the printers made various mistakes in both printings.

On the specific point of Ruth 3:15, the first 1611 edition (also known as STC 2216), had the typographical error of "he", which was corrected to "she" in the second edition, as it has stood in the proper and normal editions since that time. A very few editions have followed the incorrect typographical error, but it is understood and accepted by most that the word "she" is correct.

 

[bibleprotector]

Which KJV?

There is only one King James Version which is common, historical and published through the world.

And where does the Bible make this statement?

The Bible does not state that verbatim, but can be understood when various Scriptures are taken together, including Romans 16:26.

 

[Vince Massi]

Romans 16:26 but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith,

This verse makes no mention of the KJV or the Millennium.

 

[subllibrm]

Romans 16:26 but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith,

This verse makes no mention of the KJV or the Millennium.

Only because you are blinded by your modernist infidelity.