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!
Yes, bashing was abad choice of words.Originally posted by swordsman:
To all of the above who are too many to mention:
Bashing...bad choice of words
Fruit in 20th century, oh yes, so many christians.
Name one nation that has increased in morality, holiness, Godliness. No wait... name one state...no, NO,NO , ONE CITY!
Cynic,I see the Holy Spirit has used the AV a lot more than your 200+ versions combined.
Call it what you will we are to be the salt and the light, and the church today is anything but.
Romanbear, JYD said no other Bibles are public domain. I listed several that were, and instead of dealing with that fact, he accused them of something that wasn't true.Originally posted by romanbear:
Brian T;
You shouldn't talk about slander you slandered me by calling me a liar.Are you the accuser of the bretheran,You never apollogize you just go on like nothing happen. You still haven't proven me a liar yet.But I see this doesn't stop you from accusing others.You are one who accuses without cause
There is a big difference between being deceitful and being wrong. I think you are "wrong", and I apologized for making sound like I thought you were "deceitful". I am simply trying to get you to explain *why* you have that opinion. Surely if those who support new versions hated those that use the KJV, it would be relatively easy to provide an example or two. If you can't provide a single example, why do you have that opinion?Originally posted by romanbear:
Brian T;![]()
First you apologize then you say my opinion is untrue. Someones opinion can be mistaken but cannot be decietful as in a lie about fact.
I wouldn't have the opinion if I thought it to be wrong.
This is a subjective opinion, not a factual one. Therefore, it has absolutely no relevance.Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
At no other time has such a panel of experts been assembled as the translators of the KJV for the purpose of translating the Bible.
I am not sure about others but this was also the stated purpose of the NASB translators... who were conservative evangelicals... and stand in distinction to all other translation committees in that each person who worked on it signed a statement affirming inerrancy.Their sole motive was to translate the Word of God from the ancient languages in the most accurate form possible.
Probably. They were only about a generation removed from leaving Rome in 1611. They stood out from other Protestants by establishing their monarch as the earthly head of the Church. The head of the KJV translation committee, Bishop Andrewes, preached that the Eucharist was both sacrament and sacrifice.Yes, they were Anglicans, but Anglican in 1611 was a far cry from what Anglican was in 1880 or even today.
I am only familiar with these two. The reason their reputations are in question is because they have spoken and written false statements, been shown their errors, and refused to recant.Originally posted by romanbear:
But don't take my word for it people like Dr Samuel Gipp,...Texe mars Author.... All have had the same type of encounters.The only reason any of these men's reputations may be questionable is because of there stance on the KJV. and them being criticized for there beliefs.
Yes, but they dropped the ball using corrupt text(s).I am not sure about others but this was also the stated purpose of the NASB translators... who were conservative evangelicals... and stand in distinction to all other translation committees in that each person who worked on it signed a statement affirming inerrancy.
This clerk should not have said some of the things he did. But I don't see where he hated users of the KJV.Originally posted by romanbear:
He said that the KJV was as corrupt as the man who made it and everyone who used it is misled by him.
Preference for one version over another is not hatred towards people who use that other version.Maybe you've been there but the man Hates the KJV and is a strong supporter of the NIV.He is convinced that the NIV is the only Bible there is and he also told me King James was a Homosexual.
My discussion with you is NOT about the KJV. We were discussing your claim that supporters of new versions hate KJV users. I have checked the "KJV-only" sites. I have one myself, and a few years ago started and ran what is perhaps the busiest KJV-only discussion board on the internet. Yes, things got heated quite often, and slander was not uncommon, but a sweeping generalization that supporters of new versions hate KJV-users is simply untrue.You say no one says anything bad about the KJB your wrong why don't you check out some of the statements that have been on KJV only sites I suppose there all liars.
This is an unproven assertion and one that is widely rejected by those who have studied the subject in depth. BTW, the texts they used came from a study of both families of mss as well as the versions and church fathers. It is based on a sound analysis of what was probably in the originals and what was not. Erasmus used a handful of incomplete, late mss to produce his texts. As such, it includes text that has little or no Greek support.Originally posted by JYD:
Yes, but they dropped the ball using corrupt text(s).
Marres claimed that a scholarly opponent of KJVOnlyism was muted by God during the filming of a TV program on the subject. The claim was unsubstantiated, proven wrong, and Marres confronted. He refused to recant and continued to spread this lie.Originally posted by romanbear:
Hi Scott J;![]()
I believe everyone is obligated to back up there accusations.Would you explain your comments by giving us examples of what Texe Mars and Samuel Gipp lied about.You should be aware that the KJV only sites has Radio archives of conversations on the air with John Ankerberg and Texe Mars.You can go there if you like I'll PM you the address if you want.![]()
Romanbear
Peace