Is it intellectual dishonesty...

Yes. But it goes deeper
than mere intellectual dishonesty.

-----------------------------------
On a Bulletin board that says:

This is an independent, fundamental Baptist
discussion board that
accepts the King James Bible (AV 1611) as
the perfect word of God
and the final authority in all matters
of faith and practice.

I posted this:

Romanes X:9 (KJV1611):

That if thou shalt confesse with
thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt
beleeue in thing heart, that God hath
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saued.

It was edited out with this note:

"Note: Quotations from all other Bibles deleted
by the administrator."

The quote of the same verse from KJV1873 was
allowed to remain.

Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
doesn't accept quotes from
the KJV1611. Tee hee.

-----------------------------------
And here is what was posted from the
administrator of that site
on a neutral site where the above appeared:
-----------------------------------

Dear Mr. Edwards,

Laugh now while you have the chance.
You came to our discussion board knowing
our stand on the King James Bible and
yet you decided to stir up a little trouble.
You quoted Romans 10:9 from many different
bible versions trying to prove that
they all stated the same thing.
In the middle you used King James Bibles
from 1611, 1769, and 1873 trying to
make it look like they were all different.
The deletion was to get rid of your redundancy
as well as your quotes from modern versions.
So laugh all you want to because
I am banning you from our board.

/name surpressed/
-----------------------------------
Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
bans KJV1611 quoters ???

 

Ed,give it a rest will ya?

 

Not likely with two new KJVOs on the board
who don't bother to read what has
already been written.

 

Hey, Ed, Got a question for you. Since you claim to have the Original 1611 in type, how is it you know BTSOAD it's authentic?

Now we know what is referred to as the 1769 is only the updated spelling and punctuation of the 1611, where is there any LEGITIMATE changes?

UH, Dr. Bob?, Scott, I would ask you, but your lip is still pooched out and you're mad at me.

 

I don't know if I'd say it's intellectually dishonest. There really is not much substantial difference between the two.

In fact I have no problem with one who asserts the primacy of the KJB - only with one who does so in a manner that makes a bible version more important that Christian love.

 

I wonder if anyone else has noticed this cowardly attempt to use "love" as an instrument of war and destruction against the Christian?

I just hope the 2 who voted their opinion over-rides "Brotherly Love", uh, the OTHER commandment of OUR Lord, uh, get straightened out.

 

I would say it si intellectually dishonest to say this in light of the mountains of evidence amassed that show that the changes are not merely updated spelling and punctuation (as if somehow those really aren't errors). Perhaps one simply does not know about these changes and thus they are merely uninformed. For one to know about these changes and still say they are only spelling and punctutation is intellectually dishonest.

 

The same way you know that your 1769 is authentic.
The public trust given to the publisher.
Until, If and when it has been shown that the public trust has been violated in the area of authenticity then assume authenticity.

As to intellectual dishonesty on the part of the KJVO quoting the 1769 (or later version) of the King James Bible and calling it the 1611, I'm not sure.

However Dr Bob has a point. Since the KJVO Savanarolas have come here to the BB with their doctrinal Inquisition, kindled the hemlock and sang their Te Deum based upon "that which is different is not the same", I say BURN 'EM! (on their own funeral pyer).



HankD

 

Peek-a-boo; it's me again! Now let me try to sort this all out for myself...

Before I EVER heard of 1611 or "only" or Gail or Ruckman, or anybody/thing else since coming on the BB, I always had a HolyBible. That's what it says right on the cover of my black Book.

I'm figuring what folks mean when they say KJ1611 is "all that came from that line". And I figure whatever the 1611 came from is a pure line. So all who use whatever started the HolyBible that the 1611 "came from" had the true words that God spoke.

I am of the line of my great-greats. I don't look exactly like my great-greatgranny, but I do have many of her traits. My Bible is of the line of its great-greats, tho' it don't talk the same, it still has that bloodline. The purebred cows up the road from me have no scrubs mixed in...else they wouldn't be "pure"bred.

After the "quest" daughter(Farmer's Wife) took herself on, I'm thinking of getting me a Cambridge Text Only, for it seems some publishers in their haste or greed are tending to make printing errors.

Yes, satan is subtle; he even tries to sway folks to swap to the Nkjv...but that goose don't fly. Honk!

 

Sorry Larry, but from up here your "mountains" are inverted and appear from the Heavenly view as pitfalls of intellectualism, it's called lunacy. ut I will hand it to one "lunatic":

"Could we with ink the ocean fill, and were the skies of parchment made: were every stalk on earth a quill, and every man a scribe by trade; to write the love of God above would drain the ocean dry; nor could the scroll contain the whole, tho' stretched from sky to sky.

O love of God, how rich and pure! How measureless and strong! It shall forevermorendure, the saints and angels song."

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.


Question, for all the stupendously intellectuals, if these "books" were written, would they not also be accurate and precise to express the Love of God? But don't leave out the facts many of these "books" confuse and misrepresent the Word.

Just a thought.

 

On right on the spine and the inside title page it says "authorized version" or "King James Verson." What it is saying is that this is a particular version of the Holy Bible. It is not claiming to be the only Holy Bible. They knew better than to make such a claim.

Why would Satan want people to read a faithful translation of God's word in an easy to read language? That would be defeating his own purpose. This argument is similar to the one the Pharisees tried on Christ when they accused him of using the power of Satan to cast out demons. Christ rightly pointed out the absurdity of that ... Why would Satan cast his own workers out? Why would he work against himself?

And the same is true here. If someone reads and lives by teh NKJV, Satan loses. It is ludicrous to suggest that he wants that.

 

You "young uns'" could learn a little from the wisdom of Granny Gumbo.

Thanks, Granny, I believe exactly the same!

James 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

Take note Dr. Bob.

 

Larry:

He would only have us to believe the nkjv is a faithful translation, that is his purpose.

Shot dead before ever getting into the foxhole.

P.S.

I would never be caught guilty of trying to "capitalize" on the "s" in satan.

You'll get that in a minute, I'm sure.

 

Hey PastorLar! I haven't got a copy of the Nkjv, but have heard it's more dangerous than all others. The side of my Bible is covered with duct tape, so I can't see what it sez, the inside pages are missing. It's an "old old" Bible, but I can faintly see Holy Bible embedded on the front. I got it in the early 50s.

I did find a piece of a Nkjv article on the 'net which was enuff to convince me something's amiss:

The NKJV translators claim to have "preserved the authority and accuracy" and "improved the purity and beauty" of the original KJV. We disagree that the "purity and beauty" have been improved. Although the NKJV uses the underlying Textus Receptus Greek text, the translators repeatedly use marginal notations to reference the Modem Critical Text upon which all of the modem versions are based. The NKJV advocate opens a door that lends credibility to a perverted underlying text used by all the other versions. Furthermore, changes in the text are made which simply are not warranted. The NKJV primarily uses the 1967/ 1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica and draws from sources which result in a Hebrew text that is different from the Jacob ben Chayyim text underlying the KJV Old Testament. As a result the NKJV preface rightly stated, "significant variations are recorded in footnotes." We believe the potential for most textual problems and variants between the KJV and NKJV will be found in the Old Testament.

 

Dear Mr. Edwards,

Laugh now while you have the chance.
You came to our discussion board knowing
our stand on the King James Bible...

This makes me ROTFL! Long as I see stuff like that, I rejoice, because then I know I'm not the stupidest person alive!

But it saddens me also, to know there are people out there who should know better, who actually BELIEVE those idiots!

The KJVO is quick to hit the "ban" button. While not calling them Nazis, I WOULD remind them that this was a method employed by Goebbels, who was far too shallow to answer any questions.

 

Two intellectually dishonest statements:

Everybody knows there are differences, but they are slight.

There are not mountains of evidence, there is the evidence of a KJVO himself, Dr. Waite, who says there are 12 changes of substance (excluding spelling and printing changes).

They simply are not "vastly" different, neither is there "mountains of evidence" that the changes are not merely updated spelling and punctuation. Most of the changes were updated spelling and/or printer errors, but there are those 12 changes of substance...

Jason

 

I brought my lip pump along with me; The Bible was published in 1611, but yall just can't come to the Light and understand it is perfected as well.