1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

KJ21 and TMB

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by David J, Aug 24, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 3
  1. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since these two bibles are an updated 1611KJV are they considered perfect by the KJVO Camp?

    Now keep in mind that the AV1611 was revised and corrected several times. Most KJVOist today use a 1769 KJV.

    http://www.kj21.com/

    http://www.tmbible.com/

    The KJ21 does not update and correct 2 Peter 1:1

    2 Peter 1,"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ" KJ21

    or Acts 5:30 is not corrected:

    Acts 5:30,"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." KJ21

    Can a KJVOist use a KJ21 or TMB in the KJVO Camp and be accepted?

    Can the KJ21 or TMB replace the 1769 KJV? If not then explain to me why with examples.

    If the KJ21 and TMB are not good then please tell me why with examples.

    No spin please. Just answer the questions with facts and not opinions.
     
    #1 David J, Aug 24, 2004
  2. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,506
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    From what I'm told by many of my IFB preacher friends, they do not condone using anything other than the KJV. This would include the KJ21 and the TMB.

    AVL1984
     
    #2 AVL1984, Aug 24, 2004
  3. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    No KJVO comments on this subject?

    Odd....silence yet again from the KJVO.
     
    #3 David J, Aug 24, 2004
  4. Cix

    Cix New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Get used to the silence. They usually crawl back into the woodwork when they see a tough question that questions thier false doctrines.
     
    #4 Cix, Aug 24, 2004
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Many claim to be TR only - that the Textus Receptus is the best, most accurate rerflection of the originals. I have no problem with that.

    But IF that is the position, then they should readily accept the AV1611, all revisions of that including the 1762, 1769, 1883 and now the NKJV + the KJ21 and TMB.

    Or admit that they are MORE than "TR only" and truly believe the KJV (whichever revision they choose) is the only correct translation. That I have a problem with!
     
    #5 Dr. Bob, Aug 24, 2004
  6. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Amen!
    And the NKJV as well, which DOES follow the TR.

    INCOMING?

    HankD
     
    #6 HankD, Aug 24, 2004
  7. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    This topic is truly an eyesore for the KJVO Camp. This is not the first time I have asked this question. I have yet to have any KJVO give me a real answer with examples.

    The issue of the KJ21 and TMB proves that most KJVOist are nothing but 1769KJVOist. All the spin about the TR being so good is nothing but a lie coming from the KJVO Camp.

    I guess Ex Cathreda did fall upon Blayney in 1769! YIKES!!!!!!!!
     
    #7 David J, Aug 25, 2004
  8. Bro.Bill

    Bro.Bill New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh Ya! Well do they have any good study Bibles in those versions? My input since no KJVO's will give any input.
     
    #8 Bro.Bill, Aug 25, 2004
  9. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJVOist will not touch the KJ21 and TMB issue with a 10 foot pole. The KJ21 and TMB shows true KJVO double standards!
     
    #9 David J, Aug 25, 2004
  10. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am doing a thorough research on the KJ21 at this time. On the surface it appears to be a valid updating of the AV 1611. I am not ready yet to support it carte blanche, but I do like the following features contained in this version:

     
    #10 Pastor_Bob, Sep 16, 2004
  11. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,506
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I've read excerpts from both, and I could probably use either.

    AVL1984
     
    #11 AVL1984, Sep 16, 2004
  12. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJV21 and TMB?

    [​IMG]
     
    #12 Askjo, Sep 16, 2004
  13. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Pastor Bob: "...the KJ21 ... On the surface it appears to be a valid updating of the AV 1611. I am not ready yet to support it carte blanche, but I do like the following features contained in this version..."

    Question: is there anything in this KJ21 that is superior to the updating of most of the archaisms (while leaving thou and thee etc. intact) that appeared in the New Scofield KJV published in 1967, except for the benefit [​IMG] of not having the Scofield notes?
     
    #13 Ziggy, Sep 16, 2004
  14. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Since we have the Bible God has blessed, why would we want to change to anything else?

    We believe that the KJV is THE Bible for the English-speaking people, period, end of story!
     
    #14 Terry_Herrington, Sep 17, 2004
  15. Jim Ward

    Jim Ward New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    AMEN!
     
    #15 Jim Ward, Sep 17, 2004
  16. David J

    David J New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    But which KJV?
     
    #16 David J, Sep 17, 2004
  17. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    AMEN! </font>[/QUOTE]***yawn***
    No one debates the usefulness, and the way God has blessed the KJV:kjb. God blessed the Geneva before that, and now He is blessing the ESV (albiet it's still new), the NKJV, the NIV...
     
    #17 Orvie, Sep 17, 2004
  18. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    My wife works at a large Christian bookstore. Thus far there has not been anyone even inquire about the ESV, let alone buy one.

    I have asked several pastors, most of which are not KJVO, about the ESV. Thus far, not one of them has even heard about this translation.

    I would not count on the ESV being more than a passing fad among those who cannot decide what Bible to use.
     
    #18 Terry_Herrington, Sep 18, 2004
  19. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I would not count on the ESV being more than a passing fad among those who cannot decide what Bible to use."
    "
    It happens. The new Bible translation that is coming out late october in my country will probably be here to stay, a revision of another Bibletranslation they are working on at the moment may very well turn out to be passing fad.
     
    #19 mioque, Sep 18, 2004
  20. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Obviously not everyone agrees.

    For one thing.

    The NT when originally given was in a lingua Franca of it's day called koine Greek.

    This language was in a form contemporary to it's day. A simplified form of Attic Greek.

    It was translated into other of the functional koine languages of it's day (Itala, Peshitto).

    The 1611 English of the Elizabethan-Jacobean period is not 21st century koine or "Standard" English.


    HankD
     
    #20 HankD, Sep 18, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 3
Loading...