What is the KJ"B"

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Jun 22, 2003.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Just came across another "only" who is trying to change the name of the AV1611 (Authorized Version) or one of its many revisions (like the KJV1769 Oxford that I use) to KJB.

    Is this a concerted attempt to "revise history" or try to make the KJV look like a BIBLE while other modern English translations look like something less?

    I have my ideas, but get iritated daily by this new nomenclature. What gives? :eek:
     
  2. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    What "gives" is the NASV changing it's name the NASb.I call the Holy Bible the KJB myself. Whats the biggie???
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Just asking WHY? What's the motivation behind the change since 1970 and the rise of the "onlies"?

    Is it a "southern" thing? I've only seen it by onlies, and not ever here in Wyoming.

    Curious.
     
  4. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    It never was the NASV. Riplinger gave it that name to make her very convincing algebra work out. [​IMG]

    No biggie. A rose by any other name is still a rose. [​IMG]
     
  5. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, you're right. BrianT, you're right. MV-neverist....uh, never mind. [​IMG]
     
  6. Istherenotacause

    Istherenotacause
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJB is not a version, except in the view of the mv's and the unlearned. Pre 1800, the KJB was and still is "The Holy Bible". (that ought to really get you "preference" dudes to hackling!)

    The Authorized Version 1611 King James Bible usually gets some hackles going.

    A "revision" BTW is NOT another version or translation, just an updating of spelling for the most part, can't say that about any mv.

    On your marks! Get set! GO! Start hackling!
     
  7. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    And there we have the answer to Dr. Bob's question. [​IMG]
     
  8. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    You really need to do some reasearch in the history of some great preachers in the past;the "onlies" veiw was alive and well a lot earlier than the 1970s!
    What are you trying to say about us Southerners?? It would seem that being a Bible believer is a "Southern thang." Thank God!!
     
  9. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hmmm.... Sounds like a version to me!

    Diane Tavegia
     
  10. Istherenotacause

    Istherenotacause
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm.... Sounds like a version to me!

    Diane Tavegia
    </font>[/QUOTE]Uh-oh! If I were a prophet I'd say "it" is on the brink of the horizon: "Then 'perversion' is accurate when talking about mv's". But I'm neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but if my prediction is right, don't condemn me! (I don't know who it is I just quoted, but I'm sure it came from another quote regarding KJVO's by a "mv"ist. (Hey, I think I just invented a new word! "mv"ist, maybe a similar word: "mv"ism! :rolleyes:

    So then, the AV 1611 is right,i.e., the "Authorized" Version of The Holy Bible. That makes all the others un-authorized! :eek:
     
  11. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Um...what?

    Ha ha, you just called it a "Version". [​IMG] Can't decide if it's a version or not?

    You are correct. No other Bible was authorized by the fanciful King James I to be used in Anglican churches in England in the 17th century. Oh woe is me, my NIV doesn't hold that distinction. [​IMG]
     
  12. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,457
    Likes Received:
    93
    Many of us already knew your words are unprophetable without your even admitting as much.
     
  13. Harald

    Harald
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    578
    Likes Received:
    0
    mv-ist may be a fitting label for MV proponents. But then so is also DE-ist for Dynamic Equivalency proponents. The latter was not a flattering title in past centuries.

    Harald
     
  14. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still isn't. :D
     
  15. Istherenotacause

    Istherenotacause
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many of us already knew your words are unprophetable without your even admitting as much. </font>[/QUOTE]Man, alcoot, where ya been old buddy? I thought I recognized an odor in this thread, you must be using a new cologne. :eek: But , hey, who am I to judge? It isn't working either, your disposition reeks ! [​IMG]

    "KJB" is the effort to console mvists. We understand their dilemma in trying to figure out which version is the Word of God, we don't want to be the ones to say,"I told you so", but I told you so!

    (I feel the urge coming on again to "hijack" another thread, HELP!)
     
  16. Istherenotacause

    Istherenotacause
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Um...what?

    Ha ha, you just called it a "Version". Can't decide if it's a version or not?

    You are correct. No other Bible was authorized by the fanciful King James I to be used in Anglican churches in England in the 17th century. Oh woe is me, my NIV doesn't hold that distinction.
    </font>[/QUOTE]When compared to "versions" the King James Bible is still The Holy Bible!

    When defined as a translation it is a version, but that doesn't change the FACT! it's the AV1611. The Holy Bible.

    At least King James I had enough God about him to establish a CORRECT rendering of the RIGHT texts!

    The "niv"? HA!HA!HA!HA!HA! :D

    If I didn't have anything better than the niv I would go to a Bible bookstore and buy me a King James Bible!

    "niv"? don't they give shots at the health clinic for things like that? [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  17. Haruo

    Haruo
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some people may simply have grown up that way. I wrote to Donald Akenson (who grew up Swedish Baptist) to complain about his use of "KJB" in Saint Saul and Surpassing Wonder (both of which are well worth reading and neither of which is inerrantist, let alone KJVO-ist) and he simply replied that was what they called it when he was in Sunday School, and he's never seen any reason to change.

    Personally, I was raised to write "KJV" and to comprehend "AV" as synonymous with it, although technically I suppose "AV" covers the whole gamut of Anglican-approved versions from KJV to NRSV with a temporary detour through the NEB...

    I am accustomed to KJV (1611 and updates), RV (1881-85), ASV (1901), RSV, TEV, LB, NEB, NASB, CEV, NLB, NKJV, NIV, TNIV, NAB, JB, NJB, and probably others.

    BTW, I don't know of a customary abbreviation for any of the Catholic versions antecedent to the JB and the NAB (e.g. if I saw a reference to "DRV" I would scratch my head a bit before thinking "aha! Douay-Rheims!").

    Haruo
     
  18. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    The KJB is not a version.

    I am "amazeder and amazeder" at what this bunch believes! [​IMG]
     
  19. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you read the King James Translators, i. e. the Preface to the AV1611, you'll find that they called their Translation a Version of the Bible...I implore all to read the Preface w/ an objective mind.
    (formerly known as "RevKevin77") [​IMG]
     
  20. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Istherenotacause: "(I feel the urge coming on again to "hijack" another thread, HELP!) "

    When this urge comes upon you, say a
    HAIL MARY and a couple of OUR FATHERs [​IMG]
    The urge should go away. Remember that
    the urge will go away whether or not
    you actually hijack another thread [​IMG]

    May all God's blessings, full and rich,
    fall unto Brother Istherenotacause this
    very day and unto his family and his ministry.
    May this be done that we might give all
    the more honor and glory unto our blessed
    Lord and Savior: Messiah Yeshua. Amen!

    [​IMG] BTW, Messiah Yeshua is called Iesus in
    the REAL KJB: the 1611 version
    (and not those MVs [​IMG] KJV1769 and KJV1873).
     

Share This Page

Loading...