Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitehawk013
Many more than simply the UPC dislike the Reviled Substandard Perversion.
|
I used to have (maybe still have) a book by Peter Ruckman in which he reviled anything but the KJV. He is certainly not Pentecostal.
I remember when I was out delivering some VHS tapes a few years ago to different churches in the area inviting pastors to a meeting of Transformation Cincinnati, which is a cross-denominational organization promoting unity and cooperation among the churches in the Greater Cincinnati area. One of the churches I had on my list was a Baptist Church. When I found it on a small back road there was nobody there so I left the tape and information in a mail box or somewhere where it would be quickly found. I noticed that on the outside of the church they had a sign that they used only the 1611 King James Version of the Bible. They probably burned the VHS tape and cursed Transformation Cincinnati and me for the invitation.
If I remember correctly, the first issue of the KJV back in 1611 had a typo where the word "not" was left out of the commandment that said, "thou shalt not commit adultery." The KJV only people probably don't use that earliest edition.
I have a reproduction of a 16ll KJV. Here is how
John 3:16 reads:
"For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him should not perish, but haue everlasting life."
I like the KJV but I prefer the ones with the more modern spelling. Also, the old 1611 version does not use the letter "J" because it was not in common use yet at that time in the English language. And, it uses "u" some times for "v" and some words were spelled differently back then like "Sonne" for "Son" and "lyon" for "lion" and "Actes"for "Acts." Some times instead of an "s" it uses something that looks like "f".
Another thing included in my 1611 KJV has that the strict fundamentalists would not like is the Apocrypha. And at
Hebrews 11:35 where it speaks of others who "were tortured, not accepting deliuerance, that they might obtaine a better resurrection" it has a cross reference to
2 Maccabees 7:7 where that story is told. 2 Maccabees is included (along with some other Apocryphal books) and in chapter 7 it tells about a woman and her 7 sons who were tortured and killed because they would not eat "swines flesh." One by one each son was offered the chance to eat the meat and when he refused he was tortured to death in front of his mother and remaining brothers and finally the mother was killed last. It is reported of the second son: "So when the first was dead, after this maner, they brought the second to make him a mocking stocke: and when they had pulled off the skin of his head with the haire, they asked him, Wilt thou eate before thou bee punished throughout euery member of thy body? But hee answered in his owne language, and said, No. Wherefore hee also receiued the next torment in order as the former did. And when hee was at the last gaspe, hee said, Thou like a fury takest vs out of this present life, but the king of the shall raise vs vp, who haue died for his lawes, vnto euerlasting life. After him was the third made a mocking stocke, and when he was required, he put out his tongue, and that right soone, holding forth his hands manfully, And he said couragiously, These I had from heauen, and for his lawes I despise them, and from him I hope to receiue them againe.
That may be difficult to read with the extra "e"s on the ends of some words and the "u" and "v" not consistent. With the first son they had cut out his tongue and cut off his hands. That's why the third one stuck out his tongue and extended his hands. He gave them a testimony of how he would receive a new tongue and hands at the resurrection.
Linear Mode
