How long will KJVO last?

Why thank you. :godisgood:

 

I agree.

The decline of the KJV could be attributed to the "Falling away" prophecied.

Everything has two sides to it.

From what I find in the KJ the world doesn't have 25 years left, of course reading/studying these other bibles you may not learn that.

 

I believe the KJVO position is a sign of the "falling away." God has seen to it that, although the use of one translation declines, there are others set to fill the void. We're not left without the word of God.

As for the idea the world doesn't have 25 years left...

"These other bibles" as you term modern Bible translations teach the same doctrines as the various KJVs.

 

No, they don't.


KJV
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.


NIV
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of The Lord is at hand.

http://i30.tinypic.com/1tvmol.jpg

 

Messiah Jesus is my Lord.

same message, different words

 

Actually and IMHO, the 'Falling Away' in the King James Versions (KJVs) is THE RAPTURE2 (Resurrection1 followed by a rapture1). It is them sticky MVs that have 'the apostacy'. (English Bibles before the KJV - all 9 of them, had some form of 'departure' - when the Lords people of this age leave this old world in the power and glory of our Blessed Lord and Savior: Messiah Jesus.

 

Kewl. I'd loveta see the KJVO doctrine go "POOF!"

 

Don't worry,it will implode itself in time.....I mean,it used to be "if it ain't a KAY JAY BEE,it ain't bible",now it's if you don't have a certain edition of the KAY JAY BEE,it ain't bible!



You gotta chuckle!

 

LOL I was thinking along the lines false doctrines won't go away until Christ returns

 

I have no clue about how long the debate might go on elsewhere, but I do notice it is being talked about and the discussion had lasted 5 complete pages on the BB, so far anyway!

I think this discussion will go on, on this thread, more or less indefinitely, as this thread will continue as a good BB thread - well until either the 20 or 30 page is reached, and a Moderator the shuts ot down, if they do not have to shut it down early, due to rudeness or something.

So far, generally speaking, with both the varied posts, the tenor has been fairly civil, IMO, showing that one actually can agree to disagree, and believe it or not, can even disagree without being disagreeable.

One can likely find some examples of where a response seems fairly long-winded, when a poster, who holds a particular position, goes line by line, and/or even phrase by phrase, but on this thread, at least, that seems to be the exception, and not the rude - 'er - I mean rule.

I'm just not sure that being "long-winded" is all that much of a problem, but one can occasionally find some posting who is, in fact, rather long - wind... - What??

Uh, pardon the interruption for a second, please.

"Say that again?? You say the discussion about long-winded-ness is in another forum? And that's where this post should be?? Not to mention that this post is actually 'Exhibit "A" ' ??

Um, well, okay, I guess!"

Okay, I'm back! I apologize for the interruption, there.

Well, I guess maybe on this post - um - I might have actually gotten a little bit carried awa...! :laugh:

Ed

 

Thank you, that is a fine example of why the KJVO myth will die out.

nitpicking the word Christ and Lord...

 

While I'm not really all that convinced that your opinion is necessarily all that humble , I do agree that the usage ofc "ἡ ἀποστασία" in this verse, does refer to the rapture. "ἡ ἀποστασία" carries the force of "departure" or the meaning of "out (or away) from" as you rightly have posted. The "what" that is being departed from, is determined by the sentence or context, of the word, itself.

Due to the "modern" English connotations of "apostasy", I do not particularly like that rendering, to be sure, that is in some versions. But even "apostasy" is to be preferred to the idea of "rebellion" that is found in several of these later versions, that rendering first appearing, I believe, in the D-R, and later found in such versions as the NIV, NLT, and ESV.

Sorry! This is reading "theology"into the text, rather than getting theology "out from" the text! Whodathunkit?? Apostasy about "apostasia" is right in front of your nose.

However, I do believe you have been misinformed about "all the English Bibles" prior to the KJV in the rendering. From 'studylight' (studylight.org):

(Sorry! This is the best I was able to do to reproduce the old style "S".) Here, eUen thovgh, IMO, the GEN got it exactly right, the KJV translators deferre, and doth jvst as they were tolde, & folowe Ye brode [(BIS) (broade - TYN)] waye (of the BIS) they were bydden of hym who fate apon (vpon?) Ye ftole (feate?) (that is not the seat of) Dauid.

Ed

Disclaimer: The last paragraph has been carefully double checked and completely approved by Language Cop

 

Where I live its a dying thing. I am blessed to say I was never taught from the KJV of the bible and neither will my children. Our church uses the Message Bible and the NIV and the Amplified and at home I use the Amplified.

 

I've been watching and I do not understand why this topic was allowed to continue. Next, let's have a poll where we can all speculate on the price of pork bellies! Sorry, I couldn't hold it in any longer. If I may, on behalf of those here that still love our fellow Baptist KJVO brethren, I'd like to extend an apology (I may think they are wrong, but as a group they don't deserve to be offended with topics like this).

Irrelevant and disgraceful.

 

This is without a doubt an attack on the KJV.

Why on earth would you be blessed by not being taught from the KJV?


I think the versions your church uses says a lot about your liberal views.

 

Not necessarily.

Because less confusion would result possibly.Why is antiquated English exalted so highly? The Lord honors clear communication with versions in contemporary speech.

I go to a very conservative church.The pastor uses the KJV exclusively (though he's not KJVO).Our Sunday afternoon Bible study was led by a very conservative man who used the Amplified only.I know that Joyce M. lady uses the Amplified while promoting her error-filled views,but it is still used by many conservative Christians.It's not in my top 10 of Bible translation favorites;but let's not dismiss it as "liberal".

And why would you consider the NIV as liberal?!You have a lot of explaining to do.

 

Yes it is an attack. If I said that I was so blessed for having never been taught from the TNIV, I'm sure you would consider that an attack.

The KJV is valid bible translation. How can you be anything but blessed by it? It is God's word.

I don't think it's the antiquated language that is exalted, rather the text and the fact that it has served the church well for 400 years.

But does your church use only the Message, Amplified and NIV? I don't consider the NIV to be liberal, even though I personally do not like it. I shouldn't have included it, I guess, but I don't consider the Message to even be a bible and the Amplified has it's associations with charasmatics, although it's not a "liberal" bible either. But when you put all 3 together and that's all that is used, I think you will have a more liberal theology. If she had said they used the NASB or KJV or NKJV, which are more literal, I wouldn't have had an issue with that.

You have a lot of splainin' to do Lucy! :laugh:


I don't consider it liberal. As I said, the combination of the 3 different versions is what I consider liberal.

As always.........................IMO.

 

It might be considered a blessing not to have undergone the confusion of trying to understand the KJV from a version that is really about 430 years old instead of many fine versions which use clear English.God intends for us to understand His Word.He honors that.

For those who consider themselves blessed by never having been taught from the TNIV I would just chalk that up to ungodliness.

The KJV is God's Word.It is not singularly God's Word however.If that's all someone had access to God would cause blessing to rresult.

How can anyone not be blessed by the TNIV and NLTse?

I do believe that the much ballyhooed "beautiful and stately English" of the KJV is the primary attraction for many.Folks are comfortable with the much quoted,tradtional language of that version.It just feels right.It's how the Bible ought to sound -- very alien to our speech of the 21st century ( even quite removed from speech of 150 years ago.)

When you say "text" are you speaking of the TR (or RT)?

The Vulgate (and there are a number just as the KJV has multiple incarnations) served the church for a whole lot longer than the KJVs.

The Message is not used at all.Most of the congregation (South Koreans) use the NIV Explanation Bible.However,the NIV has never been preached from in the pulpit.

Last Sunday's afternoon Bible Study was the first time anyone used the Amplified.

You don't like the NIV?Why that's an attack on God's Holy Word!! (Just kidding.)

________________________________________________________

A couple of years ago I was asked to join a "Bible Study" as a one-time thing in America.I knew coming in that it was a sub-par kind of a deal.Each man was asked to read the same text from the KJV and The Message.It was the strangest thing.But would that have been liberal in your eyes?

 

You have made my point.

I never said it was. The KJV will bless you period, even if it isn't all you have.

The message is not a bible. It's one person's personal interpretation of the bible. You can manipulate the text any way you want doing a paraphrase. It's no different than me telling you my interpretation and saying it the "bible". I don't think you'd like that would you?:laugh: