KJ21 and TMB

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

  1. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    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.
     
  2. AVL1984

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

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    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
     
  3. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

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

    Odd....silence yet again from the KJVO.
     
  4. Cix

    Cix
    Expand Collapse
    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.
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    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!
     
  6. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    320
    Amen!
    And the NKJV as well, which DOES follow the TR.

    INCOMING?

    HankD
     
  7. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    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!!!!!!!!
     
  8. Bro.Bill

    Bro.Bill
    Expand Collapse
    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.
     
  9. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    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!
     
  10. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    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:

     
  11. AVL1984

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

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    I've read excerpts from both, and I could probably use either.

    AVL1984
     
  12. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

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

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    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?
     
  14. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    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!
     
  15. Jim Ward

    Jim Ward
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    AMEN!
     
  16. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    But which KJV?
     
  17. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    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...
     
  18. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    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.
     
  19. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    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.
     
  20. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    320
    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
     

Share This Page

Loading...