KJV and the Fundamentalist Forum

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Daniel David, Sep 9, 2002.

  1. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV can be discussed and used by anyone. Many Fundies use it and love it and wouldn't think of using another version.

    However, many Fundies do not use it.

    It was never an issue for those who started the Fundamentalist movement. It will not be an issue here. God inspired the original documents and nothing else.

    If you desire to elevate the KJV to a higher level, fine. It cannot be used to question the intelligence, leadership, spirituallity, or heart of another Fundamentalist.

    Out like the Florida Gator's chance of winning the National Championship.
     
  2. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen Brother, well said.
    Murph
     
  3. Daniel David

    Daniel David
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Which part are you talking about? Was it the part about the bible or the Gators?
     
  4. bb_baptist

    bb_baptist
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2000
    Messages:
    7,227
    Likes Received:
    0
    Take me for example. I am a Fundamental Baptist in every sense of the word, yet my most often used Bible translation is not the KJV. [​IMG] It's the Karolyi translation.

    [ September 09, 2002, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: webmaster ]
     
  5. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen and well said...especially the part about the Gators!

    ...and to take off on your methods a little... Out, like Ron Zook.
     
  6. Maverick

    Maverick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not to be disrespectful, but doesn't the board have a disclaimer that says if you can't be challenged get out of the pool?

    I can't remember anyone doing any of those specific things but then I do try and attack the issue rather than personages albeit Liberal is a dirty word to me, but I do not who is who on here for sure except for a couple of folks. I have suspicions about some, but I have never said the Mr. ED from KY was a moron or a Liberal or anything like that. I guess I get so wrapped up in the issue I block out that stuff. I usually tell folks that I have been insulted by the rest and there ain't nothin' to the rest.

    Shoot, I have even used some the slurs hurled at me and fundies in my own posts about me because I laugh about them. Maybe y'all can figure a way to dispense some virtual chocolate covered prozac. ;) :D [​IMG]
     
  7. AVL1984

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

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Thank you. I stand for the fundamentals of the faith, but I no longer use the KJV exclusively. The church my wife and I are in uses the NIV, and some use the NASB there. We were both raised using the KJV, and we love it. We also love the NIV and NASB and have seen many come to Christ through their use. I thank the Lord that one can still be fundamental and have a choice. [​IMG]
    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  8. VoiceInTheWilderness

    VoiceInTheWilderness
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you saying that my english KJV Bible isn't the inspired text? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

    Out like bad sarcasm on a monday.
     
  9. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thats well and fine, but some take it so far as too say or act as if the person not using the KJ is less spiritual, less devoted to God. The person using the KJ is no more spiritual or correct hten the one using something else.
     
  10. swordsman

    swordsman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    0
    You mean I could be a fundamentalist and use an niv? :confused: It just seems odd...

    [ September 13, 2002, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: swordsman ]
     
  11. susanpet

    susanpet
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    0
    I still haven't figured out what some of you have against the KJV?
    :confused:
    Anyone care to enlighten me? [​IMG]

    Susan [​IMG]
     
  12. Pete Richert

    Pete Richert
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    They have nothing against the KJV. What they complain about is what everybody else has agaist the NASB.
     
  13. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Susanpet I love the KJV and I use it 99and44/100% of the time. What I disagree with is the KJVO group who in opinion cause division. Once I was asked to attend a bible study to see if I approved of the teacher. One of my members had been attending this study at a friends home so I was happy to go. the teacher was a retired independant Pastor and he did a wonderful job, I couldn't figure out why my member wanted him checked out until the conversation turned to kjvo. I held up my KJV and said as you can see I read the Kjv but I want you to tell me why it is the only Bible. He spoke for a few minutes on it's merits and finally made his major point on the fact that America was God's country because of their use of the kjv. Being a smart eleck like I am I said so your point is that if the KJV was good enough for the pilgrims on the mayflower it is good enough for you right? He said Amen brother that is exactly right, I left without correcting him or apologizing for my stunt.
    Murph
     
  14. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    Shameless stunt, Murph. But it validated your point.
     
  15. eric_b

    eric_b
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://home.nc.rr.com/robotplot/tiny_eri

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Bible did the Pilgrims use, the Geneva?

    Eric (trying to overcome his ignorance ;)
     
  16. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, they used the Geneva Bible, and considered it the very word of God in English. As do I. [​IMG]
     
  17. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doc, where can a person aquire a geneva Bible?
    Murph
     
  18. Maverick

    Maverick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wonder why? Let's see they were strong Calvinists and Geneva just so happened to eb the stomping grounds of Calvin. Go figure. I suspect their preference was more due to the person of Calvin than textual issues.

    There really are too many forums where the same subjects get addressed again and again so since it is fitting for the KJVO issue here I will post what I just posted in the translation area.

    There are differences in KJVOs. Most of what it sounds like you have been up against in the past are followers of Peter Ruckman, who do hold that the KJV translators were inspired (double inspiration) and that we no longer need the Greek or Hebrew texts since we have the English translation.

    Again, as Doc Cas has put it the real question is the texts that the MVs use. There were over 50,000 texts used for the KJV and these texts varied very little from each other. They are also called the majority texts. The MVs use,if I recall correctly, only 1500 texts that and the only thing consistent about these texts are that they disagree on virtually everything.
    That is why some marginal notes in some versions will say the "ancient texts leave this
    out" while another might say that they leave this in. Depends on which one you use and
    hence brings about confusion of which God is not the author.

    The only reason that they are considered so special by the "scholars" is that they are older than the majority texts. Big deal. Older is not necessarily better.

    Acts 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep
    the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: (KJV)

    Folks were already twisting the Word and even John spoke of people going out from the Church. I John 2:18,19 They were called antiChrists. Paul spoke of folks saying the
    resurrection was already past or that there is no resurrection at all. Does it take a rocket
    scientist to think that these folks did not have copies of the Scripture that they would
    revise as they saw fit to strengthen their position? After all, one group came out of
    Alexandria where Origen, who had 7 plans of salvation,hung out and he is the
    great-granddaddy of the JWs, who by the way took the KJV and edited it to their own end
    as did the Joseph Smith. Another came out of the Vatican and they were not noted for
    their respect for Scripture nor for their veracity then or now since we can hide the truth
    about child molesters and hold priest's reputation more value than the life of a child. Since
    the majority of the believers would have rejected these manuscripts and paid even closer
    attention to the copies they made and received is it any wonder that these minority texts
    survived since they were not used as much and had less wear and tear? The majority
    would speak to what the church has held not the minority texts.
    Indeed some of them might be just new scribe trainee errors that got thrown in the back
    of a pile and hence survived not because they were right but because someone forgot
    about them and did not dispose of them. One group was found on the trash heap fixin' to
    be burned. Duh, maybe because they were in error! One is so blantantly a tampered or
    revised version that it leaves space for all the so-called disputed versions. I would appear
    that a scribe with some honor copied it per the customer's wishes but left the spaces so
    that his name would not be besmirched as a poor copyist should someonesee it. These
    are far more logical scenarios than a contrived Lucian reclension that has no basis for fact
    but only a fantasy of a man that was most likely unsaved by his own writings. He and his
    cohort managed to bully a bunch of men who had already written that they had no
    qualifications to do "higher criticism", but were only there to fix typos and update some
    English like taking eth off of gieth and taketh. Therefore unqualified men exalted obviously
    bogus minority texts because of age worship and the fact that the whole time was an age
    of scepticism resulting in communism, evolution, a bad translatiion and later psychiatry.

    So, the MVs have a rotten root so the fruit cannot be any good.

    Now, take the KJV and take the eth off things and update licentious and you will have
    what the revision folks of 1881 were supposed to do and it would have been an
    acceptable translation. Besides Eric, that old bore about Elizabethean English is worn thin.
    Ever read Shakespeare. Try changing the English around a real Shakepearean actor and
    he might tell you to be out, out damn spot. If Africans can use the KJV just fine, a fine
    educated young American lad like you should do just fine.

    Sadly, I don't know if I trust anyone in this age (even fundamentalists) to do a complete retranslation of the KJV so just doing what I said before is all that should be done. Too many axes to grind and halos to shine to get a really good one. Admittedly, the KJV lads
    chose to keep their heads and transliterated baptizo, but at least they did not change the
    text to read sprinkle or pour. I am not sure anyone today would be that honest even
    though they had to sword to worry about. We are in an age of apostasy that started
    strangely enough in the late 1800s and every denomination that has switched to
    something other than the KJV has dwindled and became exceedingly Liberal. I see a nice
    correlation there. We see this happening in the SBC. Even the Conservatives are not as
    Conservative as they were in the 50's and they have started used the MVs as well. One
    lad I heard was having a MV marathon in his sermon as he used four or five. When the
    Independents switch to the MVs you will see the same thing. For supposedly not having
    anything signifcantly changed,it is odd how the MVs have helped bring about great
    doctrinal changes amongst their users.

    I am a TRO and the only relaible version from the TR I have seen and believe will ever see is the KJV and in that respect I am also KJVO.
     
  19. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    here, here, here,
    here, here,
    here, here, etc.

    Interesting quote from the second link: "It is an important text in the history of the English Bible as it predates the KJV which was seen by the Protestants as a "liberal" Bible when it was first produced..."
     
  20. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pioneer, I am not sure where you are getting your information but it could not be more wrong. You say there are 50,000 texts underlying the KJV and 1500 underlying the MVs. Actually, there is one textform underlying most of the modern versions, and one textform underlying the KJV.

    There are two other minor textforms which most scholars now consider to be combinations of the above two.

    Those textforms are supported by about 5,255 Greek manuscripts of which about 5,200 give evidence to the textform underlying the KJV and about 55 give evidence to the textform underlying most modern versions.
     

Share This Page

Loading...