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!

KJVonly v only KJV

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by gopchad, Dec 14, 2004.

  1. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It denies that Jesus is the Messiah, Phillip. Can't you see that?
     
  2. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    actually, I'm a "Majority/Traditional Text" preferred kinda man, and I view the Alexandrian family, namely B and Aleph as inferior. Since these are relatively new discoveries, I can almost see an extreme KJVO calling this our "Advanced Revelation", i.e. those who reject the KJVO view. :eek:
     
  3. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...of course I realize these MSS are older, yet their discovery is what's "new"
     
  4. Pastor KevinR

    Pastor KevinR New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2001
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    0
    Somewhere between one and a zillion! [​IMG]
    The Word of God can still be found in the very same place as the AV translators found them; the Originals, and the former translations diligently compared and revised. If the Originals were good enough for the KJV translators, they're good enough for me!
    </font>[/QUOTE]The originals would be good enough for us all, but there are no originals, only copies of copies of copies of originals. Pray tell me where I, you, or anyone on the entire planet can get hold of an original manuscript and we'll get the very best Hebrew and Greek scholars in the world to translate for us. But when we do, should we require them to translate into a dialect of the English language nobody uses today? Or might it be wise to translate into a dialect we can all understand, such as eighth grade reading level newspaper English. (This is not meant to be an insult to anyone. I read somewhere that a good newspaper editor will see to it that news stories are written at this level so all who read can understand.)

    Fact regarding the history of english translations do seem to be intentionally ignored by KJO types. I can see why. Facts destroy the KJO doctrine. The texts used by the KJ translators in 1611 were good, and the KJ is a very good translation. But some very good translations into english have come along since that rely upon much better, older, and therefore, more reliable manuscripts. If there ever was a matter of men putting their traditions ahead of an honest search for accuracy, it is exemplified by the KJO crowd.

    So I have fallen into an absolutely meaningless and rediculous debate, and even contributed a little. Now I think I'll go spend an hour with my RSV, NASV, NEV, TEV, and NIV and thank God for the scholars who made these magnificent translations available.

    Dave
    </font>[/QUOTE]besides yesterday's post, I haven't posted in a little while, but I am not KJVO! I used to be KJVO, but I have escaped. I do strongly prefer versions that are based on the Majority/Traditional Text, and therefore I use the NKJV to preach/teach. That's my 3 cents (inflation, ya know [​IMG] )
     
  5. KJVBibleThumper

    KJVBibleThumper New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    Allow me to put my 3.1 cents in(inflation just went up another notch) [​IMG] [​IMG]
    The NKJV is not based on the Textus Receptus, it says that because they want you to think that it is just the "5th revision" of the KJV. Actually it relies on the same corrupted Roman Catholic manuscripts the other versions do.
    In Christ,
    KJVBibleThumper
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Where is the actual, consistent documented evidence for your accusation? Do you ignore the
    evidence of the many verses where the NKJV is closer to the KJV than the KJV is to some of the earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops']
    of which it was a revision? Is it possible that
    all the differences between the KJV and NKJV simply involve a difference of opinions concerning how to translate most accurately the same underlying texts?
     
  7. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,850
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not possible, Logos, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Don't confuse him with facts.
     
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    WARNING: LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE.

    Vile and perverted lie. I am ashamed to see a post like this, Thump. You KNOW better but vomit on the keyboard and it makes us all sick.

    I will not let this LIE go unchallenged. As Gomer would say, "For shame, for shame, for shame."
     
  9. DavidFWhite3

    DavidFWhite3 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you Richard. Older does not neccessarily mean better. But a fourth century manuscript is "probably" more reliable than an 11th century manuscript. I should have qualified my remark.
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    WARNING: LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE.

    Vile and perverted lie. I am ashamed to see a post like this, Thump. You KNOW better but vomit on the keyboard and it makes us all sick.

    I will not let this LIE go unchallenged. As Gomer would say, "For shame, for shame, for shame."
    </font>[/QUOTE]You must base your arguement on lies when you have no truth behind you.
     
  11. DavidFWhite3

    DavidFWhite3 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps a definition of logical fallacy would help, for this is a perfect example of a logical falacy. The Bible as we have it is sufficient. It does not have to be perfect for God to be perfect. If we read it we will find Jesus and He is the Perfect Word of God, quite capable of saving all of us with or without a perfect book.
     
  12. Gregory Perry Sr.

    Gregory Perry Sr. Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,993
    Likes Received:
    7
    :rolleyes: :confused: I just find it most perplexing that probably EVERY one of us here would confess and profess to believe in a Holy Supernatural PERFECT God Who created this entire universe by the Word of His mouth...but yet...when it comes to His Holy Word...which even HE SAYS He 'MAGNIFIES ABOVE HIS OWN NAME',we'll back off and hold it to a lesser standard and say that it doesn't 'have to be PERFECT' to be His Word.The original textual critic started the ball rolling back in the book of Genesis by asking the question,"Yea,hath God said....?"Ya'll can argue all you want...I'll stick with the one book that has always provided me with the peace and guidance that is a comfort to my soul.The PARADOX of all this is that our PERFECT God has ALWAYS used IMPERFECT MEN to perform His PERFECT work,and that would also include penning,transcribing,producing,and in our day printing and distributing His Perfect WORD.Bless His Holy Name!"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."

    God Bless You All...carry on!
    Greg Sr. [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  13. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Prove it.

    I guess the KJV translators agreed with him because these same imperfect men first started correcting the "PERFECT work" in 1617AD and those who followed them continued correcting it for several hundred years.

    HankD
     
  14. Bible Student

    Bible Student New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    DavidFWhite3,

    First let me thank you for the honest debate without degrading coments.

    I understand what you are saying, My only point is this. From my point of view, which is completely by faith, is that I have a God who is all powerful. He made the Red Sea part, shut the mouths of the lions, translated Enoch, destoryed the world by flood, and this same God can and will preserve His Word. Yes I do believe he can do it for me and the rest of the world.

    In this discussion I do not care if you believe in the NKJV, NIV, or the KJV, you must believe you have the entire preserved word of God or you have nothing.

    Yes I am a simple believer, and before some of you start with your education stuff as I have seen before, I have a BS in Technology, Masters of Theology and am working on my MBA. But, my belief does not have to have man made educational proof, I was saved by faith and I will live by faith, to include believing that my God can and will give me His very Word.

    I will answer the devil just as my savior did, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." I have that "every word."

    Richard [​IMG]
     
  15. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Amen, the NKJV based upon the Traditional Texts is that Book.

    HankD
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Mr. Perry,

    "Magnified ABOVE His own name" is another mistranslation. It SHOULD be, "magnified ALONG WITH His own name" as later versions correctly read. Don't believe me? Just copy the Hebrew for that verse & take it to anyone you know who's proficient in Hebrew. Most likely, there's a synagogue you can easily contact.
     
  17. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But Roby, Hebrew is a foreign language!

    You can correct it with the English.

    [​IMG]

    HankD
     
  18. av1611jim

    av1611jim New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen Richard. Amen.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  19. DavidFWhite3

    DavidFWhite3 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you.

    Again, I am saying the Bible is all sufficient. It is all we need.
    It will teach us about God, about us, about the issues of life that matter, but the Bible Is Not God and all you have to do is read it with an open mind and you will see it does not support the Doctrine of Inerrancy, if we mean by inerrancy that it is absolutely without error in all fields of knowledge. It is not totally consistent in all matters of Doctrine, but more than consistent in the ones that really matter. It is not without some inconsistencies, but they do not invalidate its overall message.

    The plain fact is there are millions of true Christians, who strongly believe in Jesus and work to do God's will as it is revealed in Jesus who do not accept the manmade doctrine of a perfect book being neccessary to know and love a perfect God. That in itself is evidence enough.

    Again I point out just one example and it is found it Genesis Chapters 1-2. The text says without any ambiguity in chapter one that the animals are made before the man, and the man and the woman are made last. The text of chapter 2 says without any ambiguity that the animals are made after the man. In fact it also says in chapter 2 that the plants weren't even made yet because there was no man to till the soil (vs.5).
    Chapter2:18-21 has to be made to say what it does not say in order to fit into the chronology of Chapter one. And there are many who contribute to this board who are very good at rewriting the text in order to make it fit into their doctrinal positions. They are actually afraid to accept what they are reading. The original editors of the biblical texts saw no need to force this issue, so why should we? If the text will not allow us to interpret literally, we must find the interpretation that teaches us what God want us to learn from it, and that is what I try to do.

    Dave
     
  20. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    WARNING: LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE.

    Vile and perverted lie. I am ashamed to see a post like this, Thump. You KNOW better but vomit on the keyboard and it makes us all sick.

    I will not let this LIE go unchallenged. As Gomer would say, "For shame, for shame, for shame."
    </font>[/QUOTE]I hate to be the little uneducated guy who has to correct you big scholars on this, but it is a HALF-LIE not a Full-LIE.

    After all at least the First half is NOT from the Textus Receptus.

    You're ALL WRONG! :eek: [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
Loading...