Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by ~JM~, May 9, 2009.
Interesting video on YouTube.
Seems this cat is promoting Calvinism. But it's VERY RARE to find KJVO & Calvinism together. A (former?) member here, "Brandplucked", is an exception, being both KJVO & Calvinist.
Over on the PuritanBoard you'll find a whole mess of us defending the use of the AV but we are not KJV onlyists.
The Trinitarian Bible Society is Reformed/Calvinistic and believes the AV is the Bible but they are not KJV onlyists.
The confessional argument makes a whole lot of sense...but of course we are not considered KJVO but rather TR only.
Just to add:
KJVO #2 "I BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING GREEK/HEBREW TEXT OF THE KJV IS BEST"
This group believes that the MT (Majority Text) or the TR (Textus Receptus) -- even though there are obvious differences in the two -- are "superior" to all other Greek documents and more closely reflect the original autographs. They do not believe that the TR or the Majority Text is perfect in any one printed copy. They believe that the King James Version, based on this text, is the clearest and most accurate translation that we have in English today.
KJV #2 is just a plain old silly position. The KJV "is the clearest and most accurate translation that we have in English today"?! Has this group never heard of the TNIV, HCSB, NLTse, ISV and many others? When it comes to clarity their glasses are all fogged up.(befogged).
Rippon, that statement is just silly. :tonofbricks:
I agree. It is.
After making the above post I realized just how uncharitable it sounded so I’ll leave it as a reminder to me to take more time and be more careful with my choice of words. The translations you posted are not based on the TR or MT mss. What I should have posted is from the 1689 Confession, after all, I could not improve upon the wording.
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope. source
I'm sorry, but this still fails the "So What?" test.
(BTW, I do consider the Trinitarian Bible Society to be generally orthodox, overall in their Doctrinal Statement.)
The problem and/or 'sticking point' I find is that of "ONLY" in any form (and with any person or group, FTR). And "ONLY" = "Only" = "only" ad infinitum, 'add nausea.'[#]
The modifier(s) chosen does not change this at all, be it "King James", "TR", "VUL", "GEN", "D-R", or what ever version anyone wishes.
The very fact that Jesus READ from the scroll of Isaiah, in the synagogue at Nazareth, that matches no known traditional Hebrew text, textual tradition, DSS, LXX, or any other version, pronounced what He had just read to be Scripture, declared that what He had just read as Scripture was fulfilled in their hearing, is more than sufficient to forever lay to rest any statement of "ONLY-ism" as to texts, in any manner, IMO!
Any "ONLY-ism" doctrine amounts to a complete mishandling of Scripture.
One of the definite reasons that any sort of Biblical text "ONLY-ism" is a dangerous, diverting, denigrating, 'deifying', disrespectful, denying and damnable doctrine is that the teaching actually effectively serves to deny as opposed to affirm 'Trinitarianism', Deity, and Scripture, in that it actually simultaneously denigrates the written Word of God, along with the incarnate Word of God. And it does this while simultaneously 'deifying' this written Word. How much more dangerous and/or disrespectful can one possibly get?? A second is that it diverts the emphases from the Triune God and a Word "forever settled in heaven", where they belong, onto a false doctrine of specific written words (in whatever language is under consideration at that time) 'forever settled on the earth', by diverting the message from what and from where God intended, namely that of salvation and discipleship, and all His declarations about Himself, and His other proclamations, and the message directed to and for His people, plus everything else else God, and Him alone, has chosen to be Scripture.
Some of this mishandling of Scripture, contained in this teaching, goes even beyond anything even the Devil ever attempted, for even he never attempted to 'Deify' Scripture, that I'm aware of.
If all the above combined and collectively do not constitute a doctrine that is damnable, then I have no clue as to what would or could ever qualify as such.
[#] 'add nausea' - Condition occurring when one gets sick and tired of hearing the same old junk repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseam
Ed, you sure post A LOT!
I would not be able to keep up but just so I understand...do you believe something like,...the original autographs, are the written Word of God, divinely inspired and completely inerrant and factual?
Hey! I like that response! Very Cute!! :thumbsup:
Of course, it does absolutely nothing to address and in fact, even avoids any of the points I brought up including the passage in Luke 4.
Why would I suspect this avoidance is completely deliberate, and not accidental?
And I'm simply not going to get diverted down the same road that has been traveled so many times before, except to say, that I will challenge anyone, who has read any of the more than 8600 BB posts I have made, to show one instance where I have ever denied or even questioned the Inspiration of Scripture!
FTR, the wording of neither the LBC or any other 'confession' is 'binding' on me or my own home church, in any manner, except for the adoption of the 1963 Baptist Faith & Message, which has been adopted as an integral part of our own Church Constitution and By-laws.
Also, FTR, I am in substantive agreement with the BF&M of all three flavors, any and all other 'doctrinal statements' and '; 'confessions' of similar wording and position, in this regard, The Fundamentals and the 'Chicago Statements' to name just a few.
I think that was a yes, thanks Ed.
The Trinitarian Bible Society has some distorted views. They are in error. They are not reliable for honest information.
They have said that "the NIV is not a version that has reverence for God as its cornerstone."
They have said that the NIV has verses which "deny the deity of Christ."
They conclude with : ... "is it the Word of God? If not Christians must be urged to return to the truth."
The TBS is off the proverbial beam. I rank it with Chick publications for reliability.
Folks here who know my views on Bible translations understand that I think the English of the ESV is poor and cumbersome. But I do not doubt that it is a faithful translation of the Word of God. It is conservative and orthodox. Yet the TBS is on a seek and destroy mission with and English version which doesn't match up exactly with their perfectly preserved pet of the KJV. The ESV does not fare well with them -- and the NKJ doesn't pass muster either. TBS has to assign sinister motives towards any translation but the KJV. In their estimation liberal tendencies are found in any version but the KJV.
That's right Rip. This needs to be noticed by more folks.
In my opinion lumping the TBS together with Chick Publication is unfair and untrue. TBS does a lot of good work in giving away thousands of Bibles every year to those in need.
It's not unfair but ridiculous.
What I find absurd are remarks like this from the PB :"The idea of translating the Bible to relect modern English is nonsense...Let's ...not reduce the oracles of God to the 'meanest' English." (And that comment was from a mod!)
[edit made by ~JM~]
For the most part, Puritan Board discussions regarding the versions tend to be better informed than those here. Just my opinion
This kind of comment is common on that board. And some remarks are even more extreme. Folks say things so out-of-line but no warnings are given for their statements. They would be rebuked here and eventually banned if they kept it up.