The W-H/KJV onlyists and the TR/KJV onlyists

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Askjo, Feb 8, 2005.

  1. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read many posts saying, "I use the KJV..." There are 2 different sides: The TR/KJV onlyists and the W-H/KJV onlyists. The W-H/KJV onlyists use modern versions for their Bible study. What is the difference between them is to interpret differently. For example, BJU requires the KJV for the pulpit and uses <snipped in accord with BB rules> Greek text. The Crown College requires the KJV for the pulpit and uses the TR Greek text for Bible study. I do not talk about Ruckmanism and Hylesism or extremeism.

    Any thoughts?

    [ February 09, 2005, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  2. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes - if someone uses other versions, they are not KJV onlyists.

    Maybe I don't understand what you're getting at. :confused:
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I use every source any reliable resource I can put my hands on for discerning God's Word as He delivered it in the original texts.

    I guess you can call me a God's Word onlyist... since I don't buy the notion that Erasmus, Anglican priests, W & H, Lockman, Nestle, Aland, or any other fallible human being has performed the perfect, end-all work.

    I along with the KJV translators believe that comparing their works gives the best opportunity for determining the true sense of scripture.
     
  4. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to agree with Scott. Before I started studying Hebrew and Greek; I learned more from my good ole' parallel Bible. ...and for once, I could see what the KJV actually meant in a lot of places.

    By the way askjo. What are the corrupt Greek texts you are referring to and where do you have proof that they are corrupt?

    Let me add another gotcha. Since the King James was NOT translated from the TR as we have it today, then why would the TR be considered any better than those Greek documents?

    For those who study the KJV and ITS background source material, you are going to have to include several English translations and the Vulgate...otherwise, the NKJV is one of the few Bibles that I know that actually uses the TR.
     
  5. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Am I the only one insulted by this?

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  6. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Am I the only one insulted by this?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Maybe I will be insulted too, once I understand what he is talking about.
     
  7. Glory2God

    Glory2God
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo,
    At least you admit there are corrupt texts. It's sad that people who don't know what you're talking about are so quick to attack people who believe the KJB to be 100% without error.

    Pr 18:13 ΒΆ He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
    David
     
  8. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    Askjo,

    I do think that we are going to need some more clarification as to your intent and where your information has come from. Thanks

    Bro Tony
     
  9. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    4
    I had heard that Bob Jones uses the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament, but I thought they, as a non-denominational university, were somehow KJVO in their stated constitution. Anyone else know this to be true? Also, it might be nice to know what their stated stance is on the GNT. Anyone know this?

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
  10. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Am I the only one insulted by this?

    In Christ,
    Trotter
    </font>[/QUOTE]The use of the word 'corrupt' by this post is a clear violation of BB rules. I too am insulted by this usage of terms to describe the modern Greek texts. I could say something as equally bad about the TR/KJV, but that would be a violation of the rules.
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Since I believe the Nestle/Aland/Aland text we hold today is FAR more accurate than the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic text of Erasmus, I too am offended by the word "corrupt".

    If you have an opinion (like I do, that one blend of Greek texts is "better") feel free to express it without using such hate-terms as "corrupt".

    Thanks.
     
  12. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since when was God's Word "corrupt"? If their are "corrupt" manuscripts doesn't that kind of negate the whole premis of the KJVO preservationists? I thought God would perfectly preserve His word, how then can their be "corrupt" manuscripts?
     
  13. saul^paul

    saul^paul
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its funny how the definition of the word "corrupt" is associated with manuscripts hmmm.

    WordNet Dictionary:

    3. Containing errors or alterations; "a corrupt text"; "spoke a corrupted version of the language"

    Webster's 1913 Dictionary:

    3. Abounding in errors; not genuine or correct; as, the text of the manuscript is corrupt.

    ...
     
  14. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Actually, the usage of the word "corrupt" is not a violation of the BB rules. In fact, it is not even a violation of the BV/T Forum Guidelines.

    The fact is, some sources have been corrupted. To express one's opinion of which family of MSS that would apply to is certainly within the guidelines of this forum.
     
  15. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Pastor Bob said. :D
    And just because YOU are offended by the use of the term, nevertheless, in the context in which it was used, it is a perfectly valid use of the term.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  16. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    So which manuscripts are "corrupt" then? How do you know which one is not corrupt, especially considering that no two manuscripts agree 100%? Who is the judge of which manuscripts are corrupt and which are not?
     
  17. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    How would you feel if I were to say your KJV was corrupt because it has errors?
     
  18. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Umm...in case you missed it;
    errors = corrupt
    so...you just DID !
    To corrupt is to depart from what is true or correct, therefore to say the KJV has errors is the same as saying it is corrupt.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In order to explain the many changes from the 1611 edition of the KJV to present KJV editions, even the KJV-only view acknowledges that the 1611 KJV had errors. Of course, KJV-only advocates blame all the errors in the 1611 on the printers.
    Are you implying that printing errors makes the KJV "corrupt?" An error is still an error regardless of whether it is made by a printer, editor, or translator. By the way, what is the difference between a manuscript having an error made by a copier and the 1611 KJV having an error made by a printer?

    Actually, all the renderings in the 1611 KJV
    that later editors changed were not the fault of the printers. In some cases, the KJV translators were clearly responsible since the KJV translators
    kept the rendering from the earlier Bishops' Bible. The KJV translators were responsible for the renderings they kept from the Bishops' Bible.
     
  20. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    TTU uses it, too.
     

Share This Page

Loading...