Words that offend

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by tinytim, Dec 8, 2006.

  1. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    In another thread some terms were bounced around that may be considered offensive in a debate concerning translations.

    Some of those words or phrases that MV users use are:
    KJVO Myth, and false doctrine.
    Some on the other side, like to use "we Bible believers"

    What are some other words that you would find offensive, and would rather not be used in a translation debate.

    We all need to be sensitive to our brothers and sisters in this matter.
    And this thread has no bearing on what will be allowed or not allowed on BB. This thread will just deal with some common sense suggestions to keep the heat down.

    C4K suggested using "Theory" instead of "Myth"
    And Robycop suggested "Doctrine"

    If handled properly, this thread may improve this forum tremendously.
    It may indentify "loaded" words that are used to purposely offend our brothers and sisters. Once the words are identified, then we should think twice before using them. That is the Christian thing to do.

    I would like to add one to this list now. I find it offensive when a KJVO uses the term "Bible Correcter" just because I use another Version, or will go back to the original languages.

    Peace you all, Peace!!
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    "Bible corrector" is already a banned word ;).
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Lemme add "Whicheverversionist" and "You have no final authority", two catchphrases of a certain One-Versionismist.

    Not to mention "Bible Of the Week Club".
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Here is what stands at the moment

    Notice the "etc" which leaves latitude for moderator discretion.
     
  5. Trotter

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    The term "Bible believers" as used by the KJVO is very offensive to me, as it implies that anyone who doesn't use the KJV doesn't believe the bible.

    I have been guilty of using loaded monikers, and I was totally aware of them as I typed them. The whole KJVO war that has raged off and on here draws out the passion on both sides... hence, I don't come to the BV/T forum much anymore. In fact, the whole stink of it almost drove me from the BB altogether.
     
  6. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Personally I find the use of "King James Bible" (KJB) by the onlyists extremely offensive. After all, the KJV is merely one translation or version of God's word in English. With this single phrase the onlyists place the KJV above all other Bible versions. Of course the KJV is the Bible, but so is the NKJV, the NASB, the NIV, etc.
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    What do we do about this one ;)?
     
  8. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    4
    I'm horribly offended that "Bible" made its way into the translation's name. God forbid!
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gotta secondguess ya on that'n, Keith! After all, we have the Geneva Bible, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, and many who say, "New American Standard Bible. I gotta say if it's not allowed for one version, it shouldn't be allowed for any version.
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I'm almost as offended that it went from "Authorized Version" to "KJ Version" when KJ only AUTHORIZED its making. After all, the "Great Bible", authorized by Henry VIII, didn't become the "King Henry VIII Version".

    But all that went down while my ancestors were Sherwood Forest highwaymen, so no need to worry about it now.......KOWABUNGA!
     
  11. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Glad you mentioned that, Roger! When we speak of the NASB we are speaking of the New American Standard Bible. HCSB refers to the Holman Christian Standard Bible. NAB refers to the New Amreican Bible. However, King James Bible is not the title of any version of the Bible. Those who speak of the KJB are choosing to re-title the KjV because they do not like the truth that the KJV is nothing more than a Bible version translated by human beings in their native language. If Bible is part of the title of the work, then by all means use B instead of V when referring to the version. Otherwise don't try to re-title what has already been titled under another name. Of course many of the onlyists use the word Bible only when referring to the KJV - all pothers are versions. I feel this is a deliberate slap in the face to those who don't follow the KJVO way of thinking.
     
    #11 Keith M, Dec 9, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2006
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Have to diagree with you there. The 1611 version does not, as far as I know have a title or a name. Both of those are man-made so KJV or KJB would simply be a matter of preference as far as I can tell.
     
  13. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're right about the 1611 KJV, Roger. But I still feel the use of KJB is a deliberate affrontery to those who do not follow the KJVO belief. KJV is the accepted traditional use.

    Right there on the copyright page of the Thompson Chain-Reference Bible it says King James Version.

    Right there on the title page of Nelson's King James Study Bible it says King James Version.

    Right there on the title page of the Matthew Henry Study Bible it says King James Version.

    Right there on the cover of the Master Study Bible it says King James Version. And on the title page it says Authorized King James Version. After all, what is good for one side is good for the other side. If the onlyists don't want to be provoked then they should not deliberately provoke the non-onlyists.

    And on the title page of the New Scofield Refernce Bible it says Authorized King James Version.

    I submit that being more than just a matter of preference the onlyists buck tradition and refer to the KJB merely as a taunt against those who do not agree with their thinking, much the way they feel the use of the word myth along with KJVO is a slap in their faces. If the onyists don't want "freedom readers" to refer to the KJVO myth then they should also refrain from the use of provocative phrases.
     
    #13 Keith M, Dec 9, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2006
  14. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't find offensive the terms that KJVO use that are intended to be offensive. It just reveals their lack of understanding and [snipped].
     
    #14 Gold Dragon, Dec 9, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2006
  15. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here are some of the words I object to:

    "It is quite obvious that most KJVO supporters view lying and hypocrisy as acceptable."

    "......you are again repeating the very same deliberately inflammatory falsehood."

    "......do you simjply enjoy spreading falsehoods?"

    "......you deliberately misrepresented what was said."

    "......the KJVO myth and the tactics of misrepresentation that go along with it."


    A.F.
     
  16. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    What's offensive about those?? :saint:

    BTW, on the "version" v "Bible" titles, my 1611 says King James Versionon the binding and Authorizing Version on the title page.
     
  17. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    A.F. why don't you go back and look at the context of some of those comments?

    After the use of the often-refuted claims that non-onlyists attack the KJV was repeated and it was shown the attacks are not against the KJV, the same comment was once again repeated. That is when it was said that the same "deliberately inflammatory falsehood" was being repeated.

    In another instance I was accused of saying something I had not said. I commented that I was giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt and assuming my original post had not been read correctly. I also noted that the alternative was that "you deliberately misrepresented what was said."

    A.F., again I will give the benefit of the doubt here. I will assume that your memories of the incidents were somewhat clouded and that when you reread the comments you did not read all of the exchanges. The alternative here is that you deliberately took these "inflammatory comments" out of context to try to make your point.
     
  18. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    Keith:

    Nowhere in my post did I point the finger at you.

    A.F.
     
  19. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    The title of my 1611 Edition is "The Holy Bible". No offense will be taken if you desire to call it this or THB for short.
     
  20. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Then, by that same token, no offense should be taken when someone refers to any other valid version as the "Holy Bible". I have an NKJV with those words on the cover.
     

Share This Page

Loading...