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!

Question For KJVO'ers

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Rippon, Mar 22, 2007.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 4
  1. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I strongly agree with you again because the KJV is s translation of superior texts.
     
    #41 Askjo, Feb 19, 2008
  2. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have no doubt that you take exception to what I have said in this thread. However, that is not the issue. You said:
    If I "flatly stated" what you say I stated, it shouldn't be hard to produce that quote.
     
    #42 Pastor_Bob, Feb 19, 2008
  3. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Pastor Bob:We have claimed that the KJV is the preserved Word of God for English-speaking people. There are most certainly other translations that can claim the same distiction in their respective languages. The issue is not the translation; this issue is the text.

    The issue isn't whether or not the KJV is a valid translation of the preserved WOG; it's whether or not it's the ONLY such translation. It most certainly is NOT, and no one can prove it IS.

    The KJVOs have only to do one simple little thing to shut us Freedom Readers up once & for all...simply prove to us that KJVO is from GOD. Shouldn't be too hard, eh?
     
    #43 robycop3, Feb 20, 2008
  4. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I've never made such claims.
     
    #44 Pastor_Bob, Feb 20, 2008
  5. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Reminding Pastor Bob of his own words .

    This is from his post #4 .
     
    #45 Rippon, Feb 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 21, 2008
  6. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Here Pastor Bob contends that the NLTse merely "contains" the Word of God .

    This is from his post # 6 .
     
    #46 Rippon, Feb 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 21, 2008
  7. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Reminding Pastor Bob of his own words . Here he doesn't mince words . The NLTse is not the preserved Word of God , only the KJV fits that designation he insists . The former only contains "partial truth" . But the KJV is the "actual truth". Quite a revealing look at the stance of a KJVO'er .

    This is from his post # 14 .
     
    #47 Rippon, Feb 21, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 21, 2008
  8. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thank you, Rippon, for taking the time to collect these statements of mine. Unfortunately, I already stated that I stand behind these statements. I asked you to produce the quote where I "flatly stated" that "no other English version but the KJV is really the Word of God."

    You see, I know that I made no such statement because I do not believe what that statement claims.
     
    #48 Pastor_Bob, Feb 21, 2008
  9. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I think I have adequately made the point that you really don't know what the stance of a "KJVO'er" really is. You accredited numerous statements to me and then produced unrelated statements to substantiate your claims. You claim to know what I believe and even allege that I "flatly stated" something with which you disagree yet, you fail to produce the quote. I believe that it is your credibility that is in question.
     
    #49 Pastor_Bob, Feb 22, 2008
  10. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Bottom line time PB : Any version in English aside from the KJV is not the Word of God in your opinion .

    Other non-TR based versions merely 'contain' the Word of God in your estimation .

    The KJV is 'actual truth' but other non-TR based versions are only 'partial truths' in your thinking .
     
    #50 Rippon, Feb 22, 2008
  11. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In another thread now closed PB , stated the following propositions that he holds to .

    The NIV claims to be the Word of God .

    The MV's omit verses that declare the great doctrines of the Bible .

    Not only the KJV , but other faithful translations of the RT are the Word of God .

    Now I Rippon , will attempt to extrapolate his views .

    First , he is saying that other MV's (such as the NIV) which are not based on the RT are not really the Word of God .

    Significant doctrines are missing from the MV's .

    A number of Bible translations around the world are not really the Word of God because they are not based on the RT .
     
    #51 Rippon, Feb 22, 2008
  12. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Bump . This needs a reasoned response .
     
    #52 Rippon, Feb 26, 2008
  13. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sill waiting for a reply to the above from PastorBob.
     
    #53 Rippon, Dec 24, 2008
  14. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pardon me but I could not resist. The NLT is not even a Bible, it is the author Kenneth Taylors paraphrase of the Bible, and not of the KJV. The best it can be called is a commentary, of one mans Interpretation.

    I have an original Living Bible, and the NLT corrupts even the authors thought. It now has multiple opinions added in.

    Kenneth Taylor had two little daughters, that could not comprehend the Bible, so he made the paraphrase for them. Later he sold the rights to a publisher, who has now claimed it to be the Bible, which it is not.

    Worse than that the other day, I saw a Baptist preacher quoting to his congregation from it. I caught in John the words “Became HUMAN”, I thought what Bible is he quoting from. So I started through my various translations, which ALL said Flesh. Except for the Living Bible. Now was it necessary to change the word flesh to Human, that sort of confuses the matter of the deity of Christ, doesn’t it. ??
     
    #54 Samuel Owen, Dec 24, 2008
  15. sag38

    sag38 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2
    Not really. He was human as much as he was God.
     
    #55 sag38, Dec 24, 2008
  16. Me4Him

    Me4Him New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    0

    Many people saw Jesus the "man", but few saw "Immanuel".

    And like the "word made flesh", many read the "word made scripture" but don't see "Immanuel" in the scripture.

    The reason "false messiahs", "false translations" can deceive people is because of their inability to see "Immanuel in the word".

    I wonder, how many would be as willing to accept as many different "words made flesh" as they are to accept the many different "words made scripture"???

    Mt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

    God is the "protector/preserver" of "HIS WORDS", not man, but seeing "Immanuel in the word" is still a problem today.

    When you see the "word made scripture" as "PREFECT" as the "word made flesh", you'll see "Immanuel". (two witness principle)

    If I didn't see God in his words (KJV) I'd keep searching until I found him.

    It's not about who is right or wrong, but finding/recognizing the "TRUTH",

    Just saying the magic words, "lord, Lord" won't open the "Pearly Gates".
     
    #56 Me4Him, Dec 25, 2008
  17. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even poor ol' Lazarus was only raised from the dead one time, after being dead for four days.

    This thread has now already equaled three Lazaruses, in which case. :rolleyes:

    Ed
     
    #57 EdSutton, Dec 25, 2008
  18. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are wrong on several counts.First of all the NLTse is of course a Bible! And it's a very faithful one at that!

    You are confusing the Living Bible with its great grandchild.The Living Bible was indeed a paraphrase (one which I would not suggest anyone purchase).Kenneth Taylor paraphrased the 1901 American Standard Version.

    Why don't you know what you are talking about?You say you own a Living Bible -- then you claim that the NLT "corrupts the authors {sic} thought." Do you have a New Living Translation of 2004,or not? The LB and the NLTse are very different.


    Well,what does "The Word became flesh"(in John 1:14) mean then?You need to flesh-it-out (pun intended).That's right -- Christ became a human being as the NIrV also says.How does that detract from His Deity?Christ became the God/Man.He's fully God and fully Man.
     
    #58 Rippon, Dec 26, 2008
  19. Samuel Owen

    Samuel Owen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pardon me, I should have said the NLT was a further corruption of the original. Indeed HUMAN, does give the inference of only man. While FLESH gives no such impression. Because you know the difference, would a new Christian know the difference?. Or someone just picking up a Bible; for the first time.

    Jesus said a body you gave me, not a body you made me.
     
    #59 Samuel Owen, Dec 26, 2008
  20. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why bother to say "Pardon me" if you are going to say something reprehensible?

    The NLTse is far more accurate than the Living Bible.Conservative Christian scholars have put it together.


    Why don't you try reading the first chapter of John in the NLTse instead of making such absurd claims?The Word is being discussed.Look at verse 1:"In the beginning the Word already existed.
    The Word was with God,
    and the Word was God."

    How is someone going to come to such false conclusions as you speculated?Someone picking up the Bible for the first time will rarely read just one verse -- and a new Christian will be hungry enough to read huge swaths of the Scripture.They know that Christ is God as well as Man -- it's very clear in the Bible -- even the NLTse.
     
    #60 Rippon, Dec 26, 2008
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 4
Loading...