Is it intellectual dishonesty...

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by ScottEmerson, Feb 9, 2004.

  1. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...for KJVO's to claim that they follow the 1611 KJV when the Scriptures they quote are certainly NOT from the 1611 translation? (Not just on this board, but on others.) What is the reasoning behind claiming the 1611 version when they don't use it.

    What say ye? (KJVO's and non-KJVO's alike.)
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Height of hypocrisy to say "I am AV1611" and then not use it 100% of the time.

    Why? The AV1611 is vastly different from later revisions (what we know now as the KJV).

    And "what is different is NOT the same". Read that nonsense somewhere!! [​IMG]
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. But it goes deeper
    than mere intellectual dishonesty.

    -----------------------------------
    On a Bulletin board that says:

    This is an independent, fundamental Baptist
    discussion board that
    accepts the King James Bible (AV 1611) as
    the perfect word of God
    and the final authority in all matters
    of faith and practice.

    I posted this:

    Romanes X:9 (KJV1611):

    That if thou shalt confesse with
    thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt
    beleeue in thing heart, that God hath
    raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saued.


    It was edited out with this note:

    "Note: Quotations from all other Bibles deleted
    by the administrator."

    The quote of the same verse from KJV1873 was
    allowed to remain.

    Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
    doesn't accept quotes from
    the KJV1611. Tee hee.

    -----------------------------------
    And here is what was posted from the
    administrator of that site
    on a neutral site where the above appeared:
    -----------------------------------

    Dear Mr. Edwards,

    Laugh now while you have the chance.
    You came to our discussion board knowing
    our stand on the King James Bible and
    yet you decided to stir up a little trouble.
    You quoted Romans 10:9 from many different
    bible versions trying to prove that
    they all stated the same thing.
    In the middle you used King James Bibles
    from 1611, 1769, and 1873 trying to
    make it look like they were all different.
    The deletion was to get rid of your redundancy
    as well as your quotes from modern versions.
    So laugh all you want to because
    I am banning you from our board.

    /name surpressed/
    -----------------------------------
    Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
    bans KJV1611 quoters ???
     
  4. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed,give it a rest will ya?
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not likely with two new KJVOs on the board
    who don't bother to read what has
    already been written.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, Ed, Got a question for you. Since you claim to have the Original 1611 in type, how is it you know BTSOAD it's authentic?

    Now we know what is referred to as the 1769 is only the updated spelling and punctuation of the 1611, where is there any LEGITIMATE changes?

    UH, Dr. Bob?, Scott, I would ask you, but your lip is still pooched out and you're mad at me. [​IMG]
     
  7. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know if I'd say it's intellectually dishonest. There really is not much substantial difference between the two.

    In fact I have no problem with one who asserts the primacy of the KJB - only with one who does so in a manner that makes a bible version more important that Christian love.
     
  8. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wonder if anyone else has noticed this cowardly attempt to use "love" as an instrument of war and destruction against the Christian? :rolleyes:

    I just hope the 2 who voted their opinion over-rides "Brotherly Love", uh, the OTHER commandment of OUR Lord, uh, get straightened out.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would say it si intellectually dishonest to say this in light of the mountains of evidence amassed that show that the changes are not merely updated spelling and punctuation (as if somehow those really aren't errors). Perhaps one simply does not know about these changes and thus they are merely uninformed. For one to know about these changes and still say they are only spelling and punctutation is intellectually dishonest.
     
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,139
    Likes Received:
    320
    The same way you know that your 1769 is authentic.
    The public trust given to the publisher.
    Until, If and when it has been shown that the public trust has been violated in the area of authenticity then assume authenticity.

    As to intellectual dishonesty on the part of the KJVO quoting the 1769 (or later version) of the King James Bible and calling it the 1611, I'm not sure.

    However Dr Bob has a point. Since the KJVO Savanarolas have come here to the BB with their doctrinal Inquisition, kindled the hemlock and sang their Te Deum based upon "that which is different is not the same", I say BURN 'EM! (on their own funeral pyer).

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    HankD
     
  11. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Peek-a-boo; it's me again! [​IMG] Now let me try to sort this all out for myself...

    Before I EVER heard of 1611 or "only" or Gail or Ruckman, or anybody/thing else since coming on the BB, I always had a HolyBible. That's what it says right on the cover of my black Book.

    I'm figuring what folks mean when they say KJ1611 is "all that came from that line". And I figure whatever the 1611 came from is a pure line. So all who use whatever started the HolyBible that the 1611 "came from" had the true words that God spoke.

    I am of the line of my great-greats. I don't look exactly like my great-greatgranny, but I do have many of her traits. My Bible is of the line of its great-greats, tho' it don't talk the same, it still has that bloodline. The purebred cows up the road from me have no scrubs mixed in...else they wouldn't be "pure"bred.

    After the "quest" daughter(Farmer's Wife) took herself on, I'm thinking of getting me a Cambridge Text Only, for it seems some publishers in their haste or greed are tending to make printing errors.

    Yes, satan is subtle; he even tries to sway folks to swap to the Nkjv...but that goose don't fly. Honk! :D
     
  12. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry Larry, but from up here your "mountains" are inverted and appear from the Heavenly view as pitfalls of intellectualism, it's called lunacy. ut I will hand it to one "lunatic":

    "Could we with ink the ocean fill, and were the skies of parchment made: were every stalk on earth a quill, and every man a scribe by trade; to write the love of God above would drain the ocean dry; nor could the scroll contain the whole, tho' stretched from sky to sky.

    O love of God, how rich and pure! How measureless and strong! It shall forevermorendure, the saints and angels song."

    John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.


    Question, for all the stupendously intellectuals, if these "books" were written, would they not also be accurate and precise to express the Love of God? But don't leave out the facts many of these "books" confuse and misrepresent the Word.

    Just a thought. [​IMG]
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    On right on the spine and the inside title page it says "authorized version" or "King James Verson." What it is saying is that this is a particular version of the Holy Bible. It is not claiming to be the only Holy Bible. They knew better than to make such a claim.

    Why would Satan want people to read a faithful translation of God's word in an easy to read language? That would be defeating his own purpose. This argument is similar to the one the Pharisees tried on Christ when they accused him of using the power of Satan to cast out demons. Christ rightly pointed out the absurdity of that ... Why would Satan cast his own workers out? Why would he work against himself?

    And the same is true here. If someone reads and lives by teh NKJV, Satan loses. It is ludicrous to suggest that he wants that.
     
  14. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    You "young uns'" could learn a little from the wisdom of Granny Gumbo.

    Thanks, Granny, I believe exactly the same! [​IMG]

    James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. [​IMG]

    Take note Dr. Bob. [​IMG]
     
  15. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry:
    He would only have us to believe the nkjv is a faithful translation, that is his purpose.

    Shot dead before ever getting into the foxhole.

    P.S.

    I would never be caught guilty of trying to "capitalize" on the "s" in satan.

    You'll get that in a minute, I'm sure.
     
  16. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed, your story was brilliant. How can someone who claims to use the 1611 not know that the Bible they use really wasn't published in 1611? It is either gross ignorance or gross dishonesty, in my opinion.
     
  17. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey PastorLar! I haven't got a copy of the Nkjv, but have heard it's more dangerous than all others. The side of my Bible is covered with duct tape, so I can't see what it sez, the inside pages are missing. It's an "old old" Bible, but I can faintly see Holy Bible embedded on the front. I got it in the early 50s.

    I did find a piece of a Nkjv article on the 'net which was enuff to convince me something's amiss:

    The NKJV translators claim to have "preserved the authority and accuracy" and "improved the purity and beauty" of the original KJV. We disagree that the "purity and beauty" have been improved. Although the NKJV uses the underlying Textus Receptus Greek text, the translators repeatedly use marginal notations to reference the Modem Critical Text upon which all of the modem versions are based. The NKJV advocate opens a door that lends credibility to a perverted underlying text used by all the other versions. Furthermore, changes in the text are made which simply are not warranted. The NKJV primarily uses the 1967/ 1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica and draws from sources which result in a Hebrew text that is different from the Jacob ben Chayyim text underlying the KJV Old Testament. As a result the NKJV preface rightly stated, "significant variations are recorded in footnotes." We believe the potential for most textual problems and variants between the KJV and NKJV will be found in the Old Testament.
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Dear Mr. Edwards,

    Laugh now while you have the chance.
    You came to our discussion board knowing
    our stand on the King James Bible...


    This makes me ROTFL! Long as I see stuff like that, I rejoice, because then I know I'm not the stupidest person alive!

    But it saddens me also, to know there are people out there who should know better, who actually BELIEVE those idiots!

    The KJVO is quick to hit the "ban" button. While not calling them Nazis, I WOULD remind them that this was a method employed by Goebbels, who was far too shallow to answer any questions.
     
  19. Refreshed

    Refreshed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    0
    Two intellectually dishonest statements:

    Everybody knows there are differences, but they are slight.

    There are not mountains of evidence, there is the evidence of a KJVO himself, Dr. Waite, who says there are 12 changes of substance (excluding spelling and printing changes).

    They simply are not "vastly" different, neither is there "mountains of evidence" that the changes are not merely updated spelling and punctuation. Most of the changes were updated spelling and/or printer errors, but there are those 12 changes of substance...

    Jason
     
  20. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I brought my lip pump along with me; The Bible was published in 1611, but yall just can't come to the Light and understand it is perfected as well. ;)
     

Share This Page

Loading...