School Paper

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by amixedupmom, Sep 21, 2003.

  1. amixedupmom

    amixedupmom
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Ok.. I think this would be the best place to ask

    I have decidedto write a paper on the orgins and diffrences of the KJV1611 and the NIV I know a hot topic. But for this I need scholary papers. I am having a hard time finding those kind of resources and I was wondering If anyone here would be so kind to point me to some. [​IMG]

    God Bless
     
  2. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    How "scholarly"? Are we talking high school, or a Master's degree at a seminary?

    I have put together several articles aimed more at the "casual" seeker at:

    http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly

    Also, a great book that will really help you in your research is this one, where the author explains the origins and differences between the KJV and modern versions (mostly the NIV and NASB):

    The King James Only Controversy
     
  3. amixedupmom

    amixedupmom
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I'm going to take a long look at those.

    My english professor is a former editor and a very tough man. I took this topic on for personal reasons to find out the truth for myself.
     
  4. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    enjoy shelling the woods, fr textual to translational issues ...

    http://truth.iscool.net
     
  5. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    To be "anti-KJVO" is different than being "anti-KJV." But you already knew that, didn't you???
     
  7. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    They aren't. They're against KJV-onlyism. [​IMG]
     
  8. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    This website is against the KJV. Why?
     
  10. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    This website is against the KJV. Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Please see my earlier post. Then again, you already knew that, didn't you?
     
  11. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lea, here is a site that has the differences between the two. http://www.fbcsayville.com/dif.html
     
  12. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ah yes: the faulty numerology used to justify the King James Version.....
     
  13. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Websites are here:

    ANOTHER BIBLE ~ ANOTHER GOSPEL
    Are the "Oldest" Manuscripts really the Best?
    Why Trust King James?

    History of the Controversy, The Faith Principle
    Bible Versions

    Fighting Back!
    THEOLOGICAL HERESIES OF WESTCOTT AND HORT
    Textual Theory Examined

    King James Version Defended
    Forever Settled - A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible

    Christian resources

    The Bible For Today -- Excellent information

    That's all for your research. [​IMG] :D
     
  14. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah yes: the faulty numerology used to justify the King James Version..... </font>[/QUOTE]Yep, Baptist in Richmond the chart comparing four
    Bible versions is found dozens of places
    on the web including:
    http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_translations.htm

    These sites are not useful for petagological
    reasons, being just KJBO propaganda.


    ----------------------------------


    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/

    -----------------------------------

    Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
    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.

    ----------------------------------

    Here are some of the lies and implied lies
    of KJVOs (not all KJBOs tell all the lies)

    1. There are verses missing from the MVs
    (fact: the verses are missing from some
    of the Greek source material, probably
    verses that were added by copiests)

    2. There are words missing from the MVs
    (fact: the words are not in the Greek
    source material but were added along the
    way or were added to the KJV)

    3. The MVs are translated from poor
    Greek sources (fact: many MVs document
    the variance of the sources, many KJBOs
    distain such documentation)

    4. The KJB is the KJV1611.
    (fact: The KJB is the KJV1769)

    This is how i first found out about the
    KJBO conspiracy. I went to visit the
    Bible museum in Eureka Springs, Arkansas.
    I bought a zerox copy of a page of
    a KJV1611 Bible. I thought i'd check on
    the internet (it was the early 1990s)
    and see if i could find maybe a reprint
    of the old KJV1611. I put in KJV, 1611,
    even AUTHORIZE VERSION. That is when i
    found out the KJB Onlyists do NOT use
    the KJV1611.

    5. The KJB is the Authorized Version
    and the version was authorized by God
    (fact: the Authorized Version authorized
    by King James is the KJV1611.
    The KJV1769 was not authorized by
    King James, and was not authorized by
    God)

    6. I know more things to put in here off
    my head than i have time to put it down.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    This website is against the KJV. Why? </font>[/QUOTE]easy. cos u can't read.

    ;)
     
  16. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
  17. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can't I read? How would I answer here?
     
  18. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    No wonder you couldn't find it, I think it was a typo.

    The correct spelling probably is "pedagogical", which relates to teaching or education.

    Rob

    [ September 23, 2003, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Deacon ]
     
  19. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    No wonder you couldn't find it, I think it was a typo.

    The correct spelling probably is "pedagogical", which relates to teaching or education.

    Rob
    </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly So. I was looking
    a the correctly spelled world when i typed :confused:

    Petagological became
    Pe D ological?
    Can you spell "butter fingers" there ed?

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  20. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    No wonder you couldn't find it, I think it was a typo.

    The correct spelling probably is "pedagogical", which relates to teaching or education.

    Rob
    </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly So. I was looking
    a the correctly spelled world when i typed :confused:

    Petagological became
    Pe D ological?
    Can you spell "butter fingers" there ed?

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]As always, I Thessalonians 1:2 to you, Brother Ed.
     

Share This Page

Loading...