KJV COMPARED

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

My reply to the text of the KJV Compared that was presented here earlier:

Bro.  Mcnair,

I understand that there are problems with the newer versions.  That is why I
have consistently stated that the KJV is the BEST translation,(man I feel
like I'm repeating myself) but it is ONLY a translation.  I REFUSE to rely
SOLELY on what some men that lived 400 years ago have to say as to what the
scriptures mean.  If we go back to the base of this discussion, is was about
whether or not the KJV was the ONLY translation that was valid and is it
inspired.  

I will ask you, if you adhere to the idea that the answer to those questions
is yes, the same three questions I have asked earlier and have yet to
receive a valid answer to.

1.  Is all of the KJV inspired, even that parts that are italicized?

2.  What did people do before 1611?

3.  What do you do if you don't speak English?

I still hold that the original scriptures, (yes the TEXTUS RECEPTUS) is
inspired, but NO translation is.

Humbly submitted,

Andy (contending for THE WORD and NOT a TRANSLATION) Gossett