How long will KJVO last?

The ":cowboy: smilie" you intended did not print. (Try one of these one, instead!)

or (Yeah, My bride had a tough year as a huge Dallas fan, too!)

or maybe this one is actually more fitting to one of your esteemed stature.

OOPS! Sorry! For a second, I kinda' got the BB and the FF all confused, there!

Getting serious (I actually can do so, in a weak moment!), although I generally refer to the KJV as the KJV, I do not think it is necessarily particularly improper to refer to this version as any of the KJV, KJB, or AV, although the designations, especially that of "AV", should all carry a number suffix for the date, IMO. Various publishers have utilized all three, in copyrighted editions, hence all are OK, as I see it.

As do you, I happen to prefer the designation KJV, even though this is not 100% completely accurate, and descriptive, either. (It is for Bibles published in England.)

My second 'choice' is that of KJB, and the last is that of "AV."

"AV" is the least accurate, IMO, considering that the GRT, BIS, KJV1611, KJV1762, KJV1769, the Cambridge KJV of Scrivener (1883), and the RV of 1881, were all "authorized" versions and/or editions, by the English Crown, the Anglican Church, or Oxford and/or Cambridge Universities, all of whom had the "right" to do so.

I would hope this thread can remain open for at least another day, at the minimum, for I am in the process of composing some responses to some things that have been posted o this thread, that I consider to be, that if not direct attacks, are certainly somewhat of such, on the Bible. I will shortly, post my first response, should our computer not crash, in the meantime, which I would normally have waited until all was complete. I simply cannot do that, currently, as the computer has been shutting down without warning, and I have already lost a few posts, in the midst of composing, hence they did not make it, or had to be entirely redone. As I now have to be away for a few hours, feeding cattle, etc., there is ZERO chance that my posts I am working on would still be here, by then. Thanks to everyone for their patience with me in this.

Ed

 

Bible "Attacks"

Bible Attacks: Part 1

After my last post, I really had no intent of further participation on this thread.

However, I simply cannot (or will not) let Bible attacks stand, undefended. I'll get to these actual attacks shortly, hopefully. [BTW, if I am "out-of-line" on this, any Moderator can and will likely delete any such transgression(s), but I do humbly request that they both notate it as [Deleted!]" , and PM me, as to the "why", please. My own post will show some places that read "[Snipped!]" in the actual text.

I would hope that no one misunderstand my positions, and what I am going to say, either.

Ya' just gotta' love these sly 'digs', right?

Let's have a hypothetical conversation:

"What Bible version have you (Ed) used the most, in these 45+ years of your own Christian life?"

Uh - one particular study edition of the KJV. I used one particular copy for about 27 years. I have a copy of that same edition (although it is in smaller print, so I don't use it anywhere nearly as often, and bigger print is a big concern for me, these days! - I can make out the words "big concern" as they will appear, without enlarging them any more, even without my glasses, this AM!) right behind me on the shelf, even as I type this.

"ONLY?" Uh- no.

"What Bible version and edition would you most recommend, and/or have recommended over those 45+ years, should one ask?"
Uh - for a "mature teen" (How's that one for an oxymoron?) and/or an adult, I both have and would continue to recommend that same study edition of the KJV.

"So is that the ONLY one you would recommend?"

Uh no, I most likely would not recommend the same edition for, say, any 7 or 8 years old, who just got saved in 'Bible Club', especially for one from a non-Christian environment. I would be much more likely to recommend a children's edition, such as - oh, I don't know - maybe a Kid's Study Bible (KJV), Explorer Bible (NKJV), Children's Bible (NIV) or some other Bible, such as the CKJV.

"Hold it! Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?"

Absolutely! I do believe the Bible is the written Word of God!

"Don't you believe the KJV Bible is the Word of God?"

Yup! Definitely!

"And you say you want kids to read the Bible?"

Again, definitely, yes!

"Then why in the world are you recommending reading such tra[Bible Attack Snipped!] and/or some perv[Bible Attack Snipped!] ?

I thought that was the general idea - to get them to actually read the Bible!

Ed

P.S. Hopefully, I can continue the "conversation" later.

 

The edition we wave IS the KJB. Saying it's not isn't even honest, much worse calling it a revision.

I have the 1611 facsimile edition. The Apocrypha has been edited out of my Cambridge and Oxford editions.

Which is the Bible? 1611, 1762, 1769? All 3.

Am I "all bent out of shape"? You wish!:laugh:

I did take issue with this statement though:

How is it you think you can speak for everyone? It may be that is your sole opinion or akin to only your group, but fidelity and harmony go hand-in-hand, so I know you're not speaking for a certain multitude.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Totally off-topic! But since you demand this right to carry on a conversation with yourself!:tonofbricks:

 

No, off OP, but not off topic, I do not believe.

If my posts, or what I speak of are indeed, off topic, I did not take the thread there.

I am only responding to things brought up by others, initially.

Ed

 

I am getting dizzy with some of these posts with quotes between quotes around other quotes and then requotes......is someone talking English here?

Oh, I hate to say this in here. so maybe I should whisper it...(whisper) the Seventh Day Adventists have a wonderful story of the Bible in about 17 volumes which is great for children to learn the Bible's stories. I have given it to childen who happen to come to Christ in their early years (end of whisper)

Oh yes, the KJVERSIONO organization will prolly come to an end in about 20 years. I will prolly be dead, so you can't give me what for.............

Cheers,

Jim

 

Bible "Attacks"

Bible Attacks: Part 2

Continuing the Hypothetical conversation: (Begun in post # 102) -

"Let's try something else - Did you actually vote in the Poll?"

No, and I seldom vote in these polls, although I will post in the threads about a given subject.

"Why is that? Why don't you vote?"

I generally do not like the choices available to me, and I also do not like the idea that someone else is attempting to define for me what I actually believe and/or teach, by such options. I don't particularly think anyone is actually suggesting anything less than honorable in making such a poll, FTR.

"What do you think about this particular poll?"

I don't like attacks on the Bible. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

"C'mon! How can a poll be any attack on the Bible? They just voted on the question of 'How long will KJVO last?' "

Not so! Thus far, there have been actually three attacks on the Bible, by the votes, which you can check. Two said it would end when there is another inspired version. First and foremost, "inspired" is the process of God 'giving' us the Scriptures, in the languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. (II Tim. 3:16)

Second, by definition, this vote that the two individuals made, was an indirect attack on the very Bible I carried to services this past evening. I had mislaid my usual Bible, and rather than hunt for it and be very late or miss the services entirely, I picked up my copy of an MLB, and took that with with me. In essence, this vote said that that copy of scriptures was not inspired. I consider this a very arrogant statement. How can that be described as any thing other than an attack on the Bible?

The third vote was even more extreme. One might note that the poll said nothing about the English language, only. The third poster voted that the KJV was the only Bible. Not only does this vote slap everyone who preceded the KJV, including such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Rogers, who gave their very lives and even bodies after death, for the work of giving to us God's Word in English, it also even slaps the very foundation(s) of the version itself, plus even the actual translators of the KJV, no less. This vote also even denies that any and all other languages are even capable of being translated into, and even that English translations prior to the KJV are not the Bible. Sorry, I completely reject the attack, and the arrogance, of the sort, that says or implies that anyone, even one who doesn't speak English, has to first learn 17th century English, in order to understand God's written Word. Was this vote an attack on the Bible? YOU BET! And I repeat, I completely and totally reject any and all such attacks!

Ed

P.S. The "attacks" and charges of attack, began to be waged mostly starting around page 5 of this thread. I note that I have only responded to what has or had been already brought up by others, here. And I also note that I did not respond to any such, until post #89.

 

The so-called KJVO position is a complete sham to begin with, IMO. Especially with those who loudly proclaim that "We [only (Important word, here - Ed) ] believe, preach, and teach the ('1611 King James') Bible, here!"

Here's why!

And I'm not even going to bring up the little minor, annoying, inconsequential, miniscule trivial fact that most are actually using a 1769 text to 'preach' from, and not a 1611 text, either.

(FTR, I have never actually encountered the first honest KJVO individual in my entire life.)

Each and every one I've ever encountered, who has purported to be KJVO, has started out by first "hacking out" 10 complete books, part of Esther, and three parts of Daniel, as were found in the KJ 1611. (Incidentally, these books were also around for the KJV-1769, as well.)

And then usually had the gall to accuse "other Bibles" of removing words and verse from the Bible. Apparently it's OK to remove whole chapters and books, just as long as one does not "remove" any less at one time.

Hang on Dr. Bob, Phillip and C4K. I have a concluding Part 3 (Finally! Phew!), that I'm in the process of working on. :type:

Ed

 

Bible "Attacks"

Bible Attacks - conclusion:

Miscellaneous corrections, etc.

Others, including Amy.G, Dr. Bob, and Dale-c have also made some similar thoughts. And some time ago, I posted the same idea that the MSG is a paraphrase.

As that famous 'scholar' and philosopher, from the 50s era, Arthur Fonzarelli, might have said, "I was wr-wuh- w- I was wr-wrong." (That is a difficult word to say, hunh??) This is simply incorrect, as Rippon has already pointed out. (Incidentally, I think he may have been the one who pointed that out to me, a couple of years ago, here, on another long gone thread.)

(Rippon, please use the "space bar" a bit more in your posts. It makes them easier to read for Amy.G and me. ) I fully agree with all this, except I would offer that the identification of Dr. Peterson (or any other, for that matter) as a "Bible scholar" is an highly subjective judgment. The MSG is not a paraphrase, regardless of who has called it that. Why? It is not a paraphrasing of any existing English version, unlike the Liv (or TLV if you prefer) of Dr. Kenneth Taylor, who used the ASV to paraphrase from. (The TNLV is a translation, by contrast, to the Liv.)

Although the overall style is also much too free to suit me, as well, that does not change the fact. I do not now, nor have I ever generally advocated the MSG, FTR.

Some of the ones above have said that the MSG is not a Bible. Unfortunately this is an attack, even though I believe it to be done in an unintentional manner. Please understand I am not attempting to pick on anyone here, just setting the record straight.

The MSG is a Bible version. Even the three sentences in the article you quoted from twice identifies it as a Bible. Look at the cover of the MSG. The title reads "The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language". (There's that word again!) Hmmm. Let's see. It says its a Bible; It's translated only from the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible. Unlike a certain few well known examples, such as the NWT, CWT, and Joseph Smith version, it is not "manufactured" in places to support one or more teachings of a cult. It's done by one person, ya' know, kinda like that stuff done by such as Nicholas de Hereford & Wycliffe (WYC- OT & NT), Tyndale (TYN), Young (YLT), Darby (DARBY), Webster (WEBSTER), Williams (Williams NT), Verukyl (MLB NT) and Taylor (Liv). Y'all know what? That sure sounds like a Bible to me!

No verses? The Bible was not written in verse form.
Thought for thought? All versions employ this to some degree in translation. Some do this far more than others, to be sure.
Check it out in the Bible? Agreed.

The comment about the author's opinion as opposed to God's opinion is another that is uncalled for, IMO.

Rippon has been the most accurate and factual poster, overall on this thread, thus far, IMO. And I have already previously addressed what I considered to be other disparaging and uncalled for remarks, by at least two posters. I see no need to repeat that, here.

I would urge all to not attempt to substitute their own opinions and preferences for facts, however.

And I'm done (hopefully) for this thread. I've already taken most of the night working on this post, alone. Now - :sleep:

Ed

 

In my last post(#98) I listed just four men who put out paraphrases of the Bible.All of them had knowledge of the original languages.The overwhelming majority of English Bible paraphrases in the last few centuries have been done by those versed in the original languages.They have converted the original languages into English.Some have been better done than a number of the formally-equivalent versions.

Kenneth Taylor stands as kind of an exception to the rule.He didn't know the original languges and paraphrased the ASV of 1901 into more contemporary speech.

No one should make judgments about paraphrases by just lumping them all with the Living Bible of 1971.And no one better confuse the NLTse with a paraphrase.

 

If I was in a more ornery mood I'd take issue with the above.But,I'll let it stand for some reason.

 

If all these KJVs are the Bible even though they have different words in places, why is it you don't consider modern translations the Bible because they have different words? That, IMHO, is somewhat hypocritical.

The modern translations deliver the message God intended us to have just as faithfully as the KJVs. They all teach the basic doctrines of Christianity. And at the same time none or them teach the KJVO position. Could that be because the KJVO position is extra-scriptural and man-made?

 

So if Eugene Peterson says the Message is a bible, that makes it a bible? :laugh:
Let's compare the Message with your favorite translation.

The Message
18-20He was supreme in the beginning and—leading the resurrection parade—he is supreme in the end. From beginning to end he's there, towering far above everything, everyone. So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything of God finds its proper place in him without crowding. Not only that, but all the broken and dislocated pieces of the universe—people and things, animals and atoms—get properly fixed and fit together in vibrant harmonies, all because of his death, his blood that poured down from the cross.


NKJV
Col 1:19 For it pleased [the Father that] in Him all the fullness should dwell,
Col 1:20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.



"In Him all the fullness should dwell". I don't read that in the Message. If it's there, I can't see it. I think that's a pretty important statement.

I am NOT attacking the Bible. I just don't see the Message as a bible. I also don't think the NWT is a valid bible. Does that mean I'm attacking the bible?

 

Like a moth that is ever drawn to the flame of a candle:

[I apologize that this is the best I am able to reproduce the 'Roman' font of the 1612 Edition of the 1611 KJV.]

May I please ask you to give me your own personal translation, not that of any other, of the words of Col.1:18 from the original Greek language, as this might have appeared in miniscule letters of ~6-8th century ff., which I will reproduce for you here below, as best I can. (The letter "break" is merely in order to print,) Remember, you are not allowed to use any extant English translation, version, or edition to arrive at this, please. Although I will help you by giving you the Vulgate (in modern type) from which John Wycliffe worked 6 1/4 centuries ago.

Shouldn't be all that difficult, I'd say. :thumbs:

Ed

 

Don't push it!

If you think Fonzie had trouble saying the word "wrong", you shouldda' seen my fingers when trying to trying to type out that sentence. :laugh: :laugh:

I'm finished posting on this thread. I don't want to further derail it, even when I could not stand by an let "attacks on the Bible" go unchallenged, and basically only responded to such. I do not want to see the thread closed, for I am interested in seeing other opinions about how long the KJVO position will remain a major or even significant factor, whether it be one week or until the Lord returns. If I continue to post, even giving my responses, with my answers to even legitimate questions, I do not think this tread will be around much longer, as continuing counter-responses continue to get further and further away from the OP. I'll contribute no more toward the premature closing of the thread. If anyone wishes, they can start another thread on what has been raised, IMO.

With nothing less than best wishes to all, I pray everyone have a very blessed 2009.

Ed

 

I think I see it --

So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything {"fullness"} of God {"the Father"} finds its proper place {"dwell"} in him without crowding. ​

Perhaps what is declared (or not declared) to be true and accurate Scripture ought to be evaluated on verse-by-verse or phrase-by-phrase basis rather than judging an entire volume with one sweeping pronouncement.

 

I'll be honest. I honestly don't know how much longer it will last.

 

However long it lasts will be too long....

 

Amen, Brother Robycop3! Preach it!