1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Words that offend

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

  1. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello,

    There's one person who posts daily readings from the 1611 edition to the board, one whose user name on the Board is KJV1611only and another with the user name KJVof1611. There are also threads on the Bible Versions forum where some people give the impression that they believe not only that the Authorised (or King James) Version is the only trustworthy English translation of the Bible, but restrict trustworthiness to the original edition of that version, published in 1611.

    Every Blessing,
     
  2. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting. Thank you sir.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And there are some with "1611" somewhere in their handles who post Scripture that's clearly from later editions. Now, while I don't find that offensive, it DOES show me these people are "party-line" KJVOs whose "belief" stems from the line of KJVO propaganda that began with Dr. Wilkinson.
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A few definitions:

    KJVO=K ing J ames V ersion O nly...Used to indicate someone who believes the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation, according to the drgrees posted by Dr. bob at the top of this foum, or used to name the doctrine itself

    Freedom Reader...One who uses every edition of the Bible that God has made available to him/her. He/she reads/studies the Bible completely free of man-made tales about this or that version.

    "Party-line " KJVOism...the branch of KJVOism whose material has come from SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson, and his successors, who heavily copied from him. These include J. J. Ray, Dr. Peter Ruckman, Dr. D. O. Fuller, Melton, Moorman, Hyles, Vance, Watkins, Grady, Waite, & Reagan, to name a few. Gail Riplinger has used some of that same material, but mosta her stuff is from her own imagination. Also, Dr. Ruckman has lotsa stuff uniquely his own. A "road marker" for the "party-line" is the false assertion that Psalm 12:7 is a "words preservation" verse.


    MVuser...Term for those of us who use modern Bible versions. Sometimes used in a derogatory manner by KJVOs.

    "Bible-Of-The-Month club"...Another derogatory term used by KJVOs to describe those who use more than one BV.

    KJVP=K ing J ames V ersion P referred...Used to indicate those who prefer to use the KJV but do NOT subscribe to the KJVO doctrine
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    I would nearly find that offensive, one little change would "fix" it in my mind.

    I don't have to use very version to have freedom in choices.
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Robycop3:
    Tee Hee. Here is one we Freedom Readers should use:

    "Bible-Of-The-Millennium club"... Another derogatory term
    used by Freedom Readers to describe those who use only
    one BV.

    Of course, the real Bible-Of-The-Millennium
    of the Second Millennium (1001-2000)
    Was the Latin Vulgate (Latin) Bible.

    {{ On a historical note, the Bible-Of-The-Millennium
    of the First Millennium (0001-1000)
    Was the Latin Vulgate (Latin) Bible also. }}

    Here is my favorite Latin Vulgate verse
    (translated portions have the same bolding/italics:


    1 Thessalonians 4:17 (The Latin Vulgate)
    deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur
    cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic
    semper cum Domino erimus

    The Holman Christian Standard Bible
    1 Thessalonians 4:17 (HCSB):
    Then we who are still alive will be caught up together
    with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air;
    and so we will always be with the Lord.


    Latin 'simul' (from which we get the English word 'simultaneous')
    is the English 'together'.

    Latin 'rapiemur' (a form from which we get the
    English word 'rapture') is translated here 'caught up'.

    So we freedom readers, when someone tells us "I don't belive
    in the rapture cause it ain't in the Bible;" we tell them
    yes 'rapture' it is in the Bible - the Latin Vulgate Bible.
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    LVO = Latin Vulgate Only. I have used this for myself (as a joke of course to difuse some of the tension over translation). But it is the "gold standard" of translations, used for 1000 years as THE translation. It has had a greater impact on the Church than any other single translation.

    Yet, of course, there really ARE no LVO's . . . maybe! :applause:
     
  8. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    "Maybe" is a correct statement... I think there are some 'hardcore' Catholics that still believe that the Latin is the only Bible of God. This bleeds over into another Onlyism: the true original 1582 Rheims (the first English NT translation of the Vulgate). Its true! To read some of the 1582 Rheims Onlyist propoganda is just like what is being advocated on this forum daily. Would that be 1582RO?

    Other 'Onlyisms'? (we wouldn't want to offend any by omission)
     
  9. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm offended at that statement due to the fact that only the catholic "church" has been "greatly" effected by the "LV" along with most protestant churches.

    I find that earlier writings from before 170 A.D. greatly effected the LV but many alterations were admitted that actually CONTROLLED the LV.

    If we were to all dig back to a time before 170 A.D. (approximate) we'd find that your statement would be considered quite false.
     
  10. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    I do not understand what you are trying to communicate. I think my confusion may stem from the word "only", but I'm not sure. The uncertainty may also come from the uses of the word "church" (or 'Church' as in the other post).

    Do you think that: both the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches are more, or less, effected than the word "greatly" describes?

    Or, do you think that: "only" one church (either the Catholics or the Protestants) are effected "greatly"? If so, which one?

    Or, have I completely missed your meaning? I'm sorry if the deficiency is my fault.

    There are three or four statements in the other post, and I cannot identify which one is offensive to you.
     
    #50 franklinmonroe, Dec 15, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2006
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Franklin, I've found the only way to be completely inoffensive is to be completely silent. Sometimes there's simply no way to name or describe something in English that's not offensive to someone somewhere. I believe that Tiny Tim's trying to deal with terms that are DELIBERATELY offensive. But if stating my opinion in as polite a manner as my command of English allows is offensive to some, they're simply gonna hafta live with it. I am quite politically INcorrect, and am entitled to express myself as much as any other US citizen. As a Christian, I try to be Christ-honoring in my actions and speech, but then Jesus was NOT bashful about expressing His opinions, regardless of whom they offended, and neither should WE be.

    There's a difference in saying "That doctrine is false, IMO" & saying "Those who believe that doctrine are blockheads, IMO". We can be as inoffensive as possible, but still express our opinions. If the opinion offends someone, that's just tuff. Some people gotta learn the world aint gonna kiss their feet.
     
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    That is accurate. In fact, no place within that wonderful English translation of 1611 does a title of Authorized Version, or King James Version, or King James Bible appear. It has no other 'official' title. However, "The Holy Bible" is not useful in identification, as many different texts exist with the words "The Holy Bible" upon their title page or cover. There are several copyrighted texts that use the words "King James" with "Bible" in the title, I mention three here: The Defined King James Bible (Waite, 1998); King James 2000 Version Bible (Couric, 2000); and the Children’s King James Bible (Green, 1960).

    The revision project starting in 1604 was organized and supported by King James the First (a dedication to His Majesty is found before the scriptures in early editions) and therefore his name has become intimately associated with the identification of this particular English text of the scriptures. The historical fact is that this glorious English publication in 1611 was the result of an effort to revise the preceding authorized version of the Anglican Church of England, commonly known as the Bishop's Bible.

    The King James Version (KJV) is an appropriate moniker that has been in long usage with this text and has been quite satisfactory during these ages. It has been only recently that another name has been put forward, the King James Bible (KJB). In my experience, I have only found K-J-B being used by advocates of the 'KJV-Only' persuasion (or infrequently as a plural description of the entire group of similar editions - i.e. 'KJBs'). To avoid the factual background surrounding this text seems to be crucial to their movement.

    An example from a pro-KJVO web author (my emphasis)--
    Although it would appear that this proponent twice actually uses a four word representation (which would be 'KJBV'), the proposal of the acronym 'KJB' is without historical precedent, can cause confusion, and is not as accurate a description as KJV (which was necessary for the above writer to use for clarification twice), and therefore should not be used in discourse.
     
    #52 franklinmonroe, Dec 20, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 20, 2006
  13. Mike Berzins

    Mike Berzins New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe the KJB is the bible and the other versions are merely versions. When I call it the KJB, I am simply expressing my opinion of the matter, and not being inflammatory. If I called it the KJV as if it were just another translation, by my choice of terminology, I would be accepting your opinion of the matter. KJB is just a simple expression of what I believe.

    It sounds like what bothers you is my opinion, not how I am saying it. This same phenomenon happens in all sorts of contexts. One could say, I believe Jesus Christ is one way to salvation, and many woud not be offended. But if one said, I believe Jesus Christ is the only way, then many people would be greatly offended. It does not matter how nicely you said it, because just believing that implies that Muhammed or Confucious is not the way, and thus offends people.

    So just believing that the King James Bible is the bible, and the other versions are not, will surely offend many people. But should a Christian be so thin-skinned that he cannot even dialogue with someone who disagrees with him on this issue? Wouldn't you want to suffer the offense so as to win the person to a knowledge of the "truth"?

    Psalms 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
     
  14. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mike, all I can say is that your belief is based purely on opinion, not on facts. The KJV is no more the Bible than the NKJV, the NASB, the NIV. Nor is it any less the Bible than those other versions. All these various versions, including the KJV, are the preservation of God's word to the human race. Your opinion that other legitimate Bible versions are not the word of God is not only wrong, it casts doubt on God's word. The KJV is just that - a version of the Holy Scriptures which were originally inspired by God. Elevating the KJV above any and all other Bible versions is pure eror. The "perfect" KJV does have errors in it - and several of these errors have already been discussed in these forums.

    Faith should teach us that God has the power to preserve His word in versions that are understandable for every generation - not just one or two generations. God's power reaches far beyond the ability to preserve His word in only one single English Bible version. God has graciously given the various English Bible versions for the enlightenment of the various generations. We should thank Him continuously for His graciousness in providing versions understandable to every generation and stop falsely claiming any Bible version but the KJV is not the word of God - this claim falsely belittles God's word.
     
  15. kubel

    kubel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no problem with any particular translation being labeled a Bible, because after all, that's what it's a translation of.

    "Myth" to me isn't offensive when speaking of something that cannot be proved with scripture or logic, but at the same time, I know we are doctrinally diverse. So I suppose it would be polite to use the term "ascriptural doctrine" or "theory" instead.

    "Bible Corrector" is another phrase that is used, and while I don't find it offensive, I do find it to be an inaccurate title. I suggest this be changed to something like "translation corrector". Bible corrector implies that someone is changing the inspired words of God (God-to-man inspiration), whereas translation corrector implies someone is correcting a translation (man-to-man translation). Most will agree that no errors occurred during the God-to-man inspiration. But man-to-man copying, man-to-man translation, and man-to-man publishing are all processes that are known to be tainted with mans error and in some cases intentional corruption. So when errors do occur, the person that corrects them should not be labeled as a "Bible Corrector", but a "Translation Corrector".
     
  16. Keith M

    Keith M New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    That isn't what I said, Mike, and that isn't what I meant. Your opinion of what I said is totally wrong. You flatter yourself in thinking I find the belief in the KJVO error as offensive. I merely accept it as the error that it really is. I accept the fact that a few people have been conned into believing a man-made fable about only one Bible version being the Bible while other versions are not the Bible.

    However, using the term KJB when the accepted form has been KJV for so long is a mockery of God's word in any version except the KJV. The MVs are the Bible also, and whether you choose to accept that fact or not, there is nothing you can do to change it.

    The "truth" as you refer to it is that there is no truth to the KJVO myth. The "truth" of onlyism is based on nothing but opinion without a shred of fact to support it. The problem is that you of the KJVO persuasion have been shown the real truth over and over again, yet you refuse to accept the truth, preferring to accept your own "truth" which is not true in any way, shape, or form. Calling names like "thin-skinned" doesn't help your case either - it only shows that the supporters of the myth resort to other tactics when they are faced with the truth that the KJV is no better than any other legitimate English Bible version. You won't accept the real truth so you start calling names. Now that's an original idea, Mike!

    The KJV is one of many translations of God's word, and we should thank God that He has chosen to bless us with all these various Bible versions for different generations. God is preserving His word through the use of modern translations that later generations can understand. The preservation of God's word didn't end in 1611 as the KJVO supporters would have us believe. The preservation of God's word is a continuing process that goes on even today.
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Mike Berzins:I believe the KJB is the bible and the other versions are merely versions.

    based upon what?

    When I call it the KJB, I am simply expressing my opinion of the matter, and not being inflammatory. If I called it the KJV as if it were just another translation, by my choice of terminology, I would be accepting your opinion of the matter. KJB is just a simple expression of what I believe.

    Same for me if I say "NASB" or "HCSB".

    It sounds like what bothers you is my opinion, not how I am saying it.

    Why should it bother anyone? You have every right to be incorrect.

    This same phenomenon happens in all sorts of contexts. One could say, I believe Jesus Christ is one way to salvation, and many woud not be offended. But if one said, I believe Jesus Christ is the only way, then many people would be greatly offended. It does not matter how nicely you said it, because just believing that implies that Muhammed or Confucious is not the way, and thus offends people.

    But you can PROVE why you believe in Jesus, while the Confucian or Moslem can only GUESS. Same with KJVO. It's a GUESS.

    So just believing that the King James Bible is the bible, and the other versions are not, will surely offend many people. But should a Christian be so thin-skinned that he cannot even dialogue with someone who disagrees with him on this issue? Wouldn't you want to suffer the offense so as to win the person to a knowledge of the "truth"?

    Psalms 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.


    As I said, you have every right to believe incorrectly. But, as we seek to educate people to keep them from falling for Islam, Bhuddism, etc. the greater struggle is against the PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN cults such as Jabroney False Witless, Mor(m)on, etc. as well as incorrect doctrines such as KJVO.

    That's about as mild as I can get (incorrect) in describing a doctrine which I KNOW is not correct. If that's offensive to some, well, tuff. But remember, JESUS minced no words in denouncing certain Pharisees to their faces.
     
  18. Mike Berzins

    Mike Berzins New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Based on the fact that God told me. I suppose you might want to know how exactly God told me and how I know it was God speaking. I can answer, but have some questions first: Does God ever speak to you? How does he do it? How do you know it was really him? (To spare the diversion, "speak" here does not have to be audible)
    If you could list some various arguments that prove Jesus Christ is the way as opposed to other false religions, I think that would help these bible version discussions along. Nothing elaborate is needed; just some general proofs would suffice.
    Contending against the Russelites, etc. is very important. Do you have a list of scriptures that you typically go to to prove to a Russellite that Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh? This again would be helpful in understanding the important differences in the various bible versions.
    How telling it would be if everyone in this forum was face to face, and not just making comments in cyberland.
     
  19. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    I thought the topic of this thread was "Words that offend," not the same old KJV discussion.

    Lets keep to the topic at hand.
     
Loading...