View Single Post
  #5  
Old 12-14-2008, 09:22 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by illusionznc View Post
I had thought the 1611 king james bible would be the one, however, it contains the "Apocrypha" which is not considered to be devinely inspired
The version-text and translation of the Scripture in the King James Bible (1611) is right. The Apocrypha is not Scripture (it is in its own section in 1611, and not printed with the other books).

If you think the King James Bible is right (which it is), then you should be able to find satisfactory explanations and answers to objections against it from people on this forum and on this website.

Someone might say, "The 1611 had the apocrypha, or there are many word changes since 1611, or the language used is not every day speech." Every one of these things can be easily answered. Even things like, "But new Greek manuscripts were discovered after 1611, or modern science has been able to discover more about ancient writings", etc. can all be shown in the right light.

Quote:
somewhere, one king james version contains the truth
See PeterAV's answer in a post above.