Will the NKJV become the Next Version of the KJV?

[Deleted at author's request]

[ October 18, 2004, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

You are responsible for the source you quote, especially if you present it as fact. If you are not presenting it as fact, then you are spreading gossip. Either way you need to recant your statement.

Bro Tony

 

The source said that. Not me! </font>[/QUOTE]That's what you get for not checking your sources thoroughly. Twitchy fingers make for big legal errors. Be careful in future.

 

[Deleted at author's request]

[ October 18, 2004, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

[deleted by request of author]

[ October 18, 2004, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

That is the reason why you should document your source.

[ October 18, 2004, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

In my time on the board I have yet to read a KJVOist admit that they were wrong. And even when it is pointed out beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have spoken incorrectly, they cannot admit it. Not only that, but another of their buddies comes along and defends their inaccuricies simply because they are KJVO. I have seen the MV readers correct, teach and even apologize when shown to be factually wrong. What is up with that?

Bro Tony

 

If it is offend, I apology about sodomite and the NIV business.

[ October 18, 2004, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

With this I recant my above statement, and am glad to see this first. Now it would be nice for others to follow suit.

Bro Tony

 

Thank you, Askjo. Despite our usual disagreements, you have done something I have observed no other KJVOist do: apologize or stand corrected. No harm, no foul, now that you've stated that.

If I might ask, what is the name of the source? (If it is a personal acquaintance please don't feel compelled to reply, but if a written or online source would you please say?).

 

With this I recant my above statement, and am glad to see this first. Now it would be nice for others to follow suit.

Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]Please forgive me.

 

Not my place brother. I just want to keep this discussion on the level of truth and facts regardless of what side of the issue we place ourselves. Let the discussion continue.

Bro Tony

 

The source is the Link

 

I would never say this to the Lord Jesus Christ because He wrote it!

 

I think you meant KJV. The homosexuality of King James has NOTHING to do with the veracity of the KJV. The KJV was part and parcel of the king's behavior, but God can inspire regardless of him. Apology accepted.

 

Ok, you actually overstated what your source said. The source says that the company that now owns Zondervan is Harper and Row, now called Harper Collins. Harper also publishes some books about homosexuality that articulate a pro-homosexual view.

This is called the genetic fallacy. E.g. If Harper publishes pro-homosexual books and now owns Zondervan, that means the NIV is "pro-homosexual." It assumes that what is true of the parts is thus true of the whole. This is false logic.

The question should be whether or not Zondervan publishes prohomosexual literature or books. The answer is "No."

Irony: Eerdmans has published a great deal of great literature for evangelicals, including a widely used, very, very conservative Bible Handbook. With regard to homosexuality, it has published one book called Against Nature compiled by a Dutchman who is gay. It looks at progay exegesis and exposition and theology and traditional exegesis, exposition, and theology regarding the subject. The editor, Pim Pronk, actually comes down on the traditional side himself, though he identifies as a gay man. He simply has come to a point in his own life where he understands that the church spends too much time villifying gays than it does ministering to them in love. Of course to KJVO's this seems "too liberal." Therefore, if we use the logic of the link regarding the NIV, Eerdmans is to be considered "progay," (even tho. the book itself is, ostensibly quite the opposite), and their Bible Handbook is to be sent to the trash bin.

Likewise, let's take a look at the KJV, using the same logic. We know that a good portion of the KJV translators affirmed baptismal regeneration of infants and James I even wished to "harrow out Baptists." Add to that the fact that the Byzantine texttype was preserved in the Greek Orthodox tradition, whose theology today is ostensibly Catholic and their Trinitarian formula is, well, no pun intended "unorthodox." Now, using the logic of the link above, why should we not abandon the KJV, since it must also be "tainted" by these elements?

Come to think of it, let's look at the link itself. The Link, if you go and just skim the site, advocates things like the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath...sound familar (cough, cough, Seventh Day Adventism, cough,cough...)...Surely, using the site's own logic, we should abandon anything they have to say as well.